Canterburys Doom, branch 1 · Floating text

Canterburys Doom · branch 1 · Floating text

p. 511WHeras I Robert Rainsford preaching at Saint Maries in Oxford the 12. day of Auguſt 1632. and falling upon ſome prynts, which by reaſon of the agitation of them, have cauſed trouble in the Church, have been forbidden to be preached on, both by his Majesties Declaration, and by his expreſſe Order to the Vice-Chancellour at Woodſtock, (whereof having left the Ʋniverſity for the space of two yeers and upwards, I was altogether ignorant) have thereby incurred his Majesties displeaſure, and was therefore worthily convented by the Vice-Chancellour; I doe freely and humbly acknowledge my diſobedience, and am hartily ſorry for the ſame, deſiring thoſe that are to be my Judges, upon my promiſe of better behaviour hereafter, to accept this my unfained acknowledgement, and to be favourable unto me.

21. Auguſt 1632. Robert Rainsford.

This was all his cenſure, farre different from Maſter Fords and Maſter Hodges, p. 512though after their puniſhment, and ſo his offence farre greater then theirs, who did not begin the quarrell, nor kindle the fire of the Arminian Controverſies in Oxford, but their Oppoſites, who eſcaped ſcot-free, and were promoted by this Archbiſhop himſelfe for oppoſing, when they were thus ſeverely handled for maintaining the truth. So in London the Anti-Arminians were generally ſilenced, ſuppreſſed, the Arminians connived at, advanced, encouraged by this Prelate, under pretext of this Declaration, as the Commons in Parliament complained in their forecited Remonstrance, and as we have proved by ſundry inſtances, to which he returnes no anſwer, and ſo ſtand confeſſed by his ſilence. For Cambridge Ʋniuerſity, we know he was Viſitor there, though not Chancellour, and had as great an influence upon it, if not power and activity in it, as in Oxford, giving all encouragement to the Arminian party there, advancing them to Headſhips and other preferments. For the Conſiderations they are written with his owne hand, ſavour of his ſtile, ſpirit: That Biſhop Harſnet was the compiler of them, is but his owne averment, without proofe or probability; and admit they were his in the penning, yet certainly they were his owne in the contriving, executing; and ſo were the Instructions, though drawne up in his Majeſties name, and ſent to Archbiſhop Abbot, who muſt be ordered to ſend them incloſed in a Letter unto him, onelyonly to colour the Plot, as if it were not his; whereas the Originall under his owne hand diſcovers the contrary.

Fiftly, the purging of thoſe objected innocent, orthodox paſſages, even out of two Biſhops Letters by his Chaplaine, was certainly by his owne command, elſe his Chaplaine durſt not be ſo bold with his Superiours of ſuch note and eminency, who if they conſented to this purgation at all, it was onelyonly as Mariners conſent to throw over ſome of their goods into the Sea in a ſtorme, leaſt the whole Ship and fraight ſhould be loſt; either this muſt be expunged, or the whole Book ſuppreſſed; and all under pretext of his Majesties Declaration and the Churches peace; neither of which could reſtaine Arminian Books from the Preſſe: And whether the Stationer, Butter, deſerved to be impriſoned without Baile or Mainprize in the Fleet, to be Articled againſt in the high Commiſſion, to ſuſtaine the loſſe of all his Books, and ſuffer other penalties for printing theſe paſſages, the beſt part of his Book; (without which, the Letters themſelves were meere Ciphers, fragments,) let the indifferent judge, till the Archbiſhop can produce an Arminian Stationer, puniſhed in this ſort for printing Arminian Treatiſes, contrary to the Kings Proclamation and Declaration.

Sixtly, our Evidence ſufficiently proves, that the revocation of the Articles of Ireland proceeded orinally from him, who was virtually, though not corporally preſent there in Doctor Bramhall, Maſter Chapple, and his other Arminian inſtruments, and the Lord Deputy Wentworth, who had neither power nor malice ſufficient to effect ſuch an Arch-exploit without his omnipotent concurrence and abuſe of his Majeſties authority: For that of King James, that he never cenſured Arminius for an Heretick, nor his opinions for Hereſie, but onelyonly Vorstius, the contrary is moſt apparent by his very words, in his Declaration againſt Vorſtius, pag. 15. to 33. where he ſtiles Arminius, that Enemy of God; Arminianiſme HERESIE; Arminians, Heretiks and Atheisticall Sectaries: Bertius his Book of the Apostacy of the Saints, a blaſphemous Book, and this his Doctrine a wicked Doctrine, an abominable Hereſie: So that all particulars of this his heavy Charge ſtick ſtill faſt upon him.

Tenthly, I am charged bbPag. 178, &cwith various attempts and endeavours, to undermine Object. 10.the true Proteſtant Religion, eſtabliſhed in our Churches, and ſet up Popery in its ſtead, by maintaining, Printing, publiſhing all kind of doctrinall points of Popery, and hindering all publike oppoſition againſt them; which generall was branched forth into ſundry particulars; which I ſhall anſwer in their Order.

The firſt is, The authorizing, printing, diſperſing of ſundry popiſh Doctrines, p. 513Books, and the prohibiting the contary impreſſions to refute them, ccPag 178, &cby vertue of a Decree made in Star-Chamber by my Procurement, the 1. of July 1637. by colour whereof, it is objected, divers old printed Books were prohibited to be reprinted, imported; as the Engliſh Geneva Bible with marginall Notes, the printing whereof I endeavoured to ſuppreſſe abroad in the Netherlands, as well as at home: The queſtioning of Maſter Gellibrand in the high Commiſſion for his mans publiſhing an Almanack according to Maſter Fox his Calander in the Book of Martyrs, wherein our Engliſh Martyrs names were inſerted in ſtead of popiſh Saints, whom Doctor Pocklington abuſed in print; my checking, threatning of Miſtris Griffin for reprinting Thomas Beacons Diſplay of the Popoſh Maſſe; my calling in of the Palſgraves Religion; the deniall of reprinting Maſter Fox his Acts and Monuments, Biſhop Jewels Works, and ſome part of Doctor Willets; for refuſing to licenſe new Books againſt Popiſh errours, and calling in of M^r. Prynnes, Maſter Burtons, and others Books againſt popery, yea queſtioning them with ſundry Printers and Stationers, in the high Commiſſion, for printing, publiſhing Books againſt the Papiſts and Arminians; my licenſing, countenancing divers popiſh bookes, lately printed, diſperſed, to infect and poyſon his Majeſties people with popiſh errours, as Francis Sales his Book, Chriſts Epistle to a devout Soule, Biſhop Mountagues, Doctor Pocklingtons, Doctor Heylins, Doctor Lawrences, Reeves, Shelfords, Chownaeus, Staffords Books and Sermons; The lives of the Emperours, the popiſh Index Biblicus, my owne Speech in Star-chamber, and others, wherein divers groſſe points of popery and ſuperſtition, muſtered up under divers heads, are comprized; many of which were complained of by Master Prynne in his Croſſe Bill in Star-Chamber, ſuppreſſed by my meanes, and by Maſter Burton in his For God and the King; for which they were unjuſtly cenſured in the Star-Chamber; to which Maſter Croxtons Letter to me, with a croſſe in the front, approving moſt groſſe Auricular confeſſion in the open Church, is ſubjoyned.

To which I anſwer; Firſt, That the Decree in Star-Chamber was the act of the whole Court, who likewiſe ordered it to be printed, not mine: That it was Anſwer.made onelyonly to regulate the abuſes of printing: That the Stationers themſelves deſired, approved, and gave me thanks for it. Secondly, That the Engliſh Bible with Geneva Notes, was onelyonly tolerated and connived at, not allowed heretofore; that ſome paſſages in it were abuſed, and very ill uſe made of them; as among others, that in the firſt of Exodus, which teacheth men not to obey the commands of Kings. King James himſelfe in the Conference at Hampton Court, pag. 47. publikely declared his diſlike of this tranſlation, as the worſt of all, and thereupon took care for a new tranſlation to be made, but withall gave this Caveat, that no marginal Notes ſhould be added to it, having found in them annexed to the Geneva tranſlation ſome Notes very partiall, untrue, ſeditious, and ſavouring too much of dangerous and traiterous conceits: As for example; the firſt chapter of Exodus, and the 19. verſe, where the marginall Note alloweth diſobedience unto Kings: The endeavour to ſuppreſſe it in the Netherlands, was not any extent of my power thither, but the act of Sir Will. Boſwell the Kings Agent there, who did but his duty therein. Thirdly, for Maſter Gellibrands Book, it was printed not in forme of a Calender but Almanack; it was publiſhed to diſcountenance the old Saints, and was a meer innovation, contrary to all former Almanacks in uſe among us, and to that in the Common-prayer book: That the Queen ſent to me about it, I could not help that: That I told Maſter Gellibrand he laboured to raiſe a faction in the Court, I remember not the words; and if he did ſo, he deſerved to be cenſured for it: That the Papiſts burnt it, I could not help that: Neither did it agree with Maſter Fox his Calender, but he abuſed it, in leaving out divers Saints allowed by the Church of England, as the Epiphany and Annunciation of our Lady: For Doctor Pocklingtons Book, wherein he abuſed our Martyrs, it was licenſed by his Chaplain, Doctor Bray, who was cenſured for it, as was Doctor Pocklington too, in the Lords Houſe.

p. 514But it is objected, that my Chaplaines act is in law mine owne: I anſwer not, Objection. Anſwer.unleſſe I command it: But the Book it ſelfe was found in my Study, and I preferred Doctor Pocklington for it. I know no ſuch thing, and though I had the Book, yet I knew not of this paſſage in it. Fourthly, for the calling in of Beacons Book, printed by Miſtris Griffin, it is nothing to me what a Jeſuit ſaid of it; and if called in, it was becauſe ſhe reprinted it contrary to the Star-chamber Decree. Fiftly, for the Palſgraves Religion, I remember it not, and if called in, it was becauſe it was contrary to the Kings Declaration, and touched upon ſome points of controverſie prohibited by it. Sixtly, the hindring of the reprinting of Maſter Fox, Biſhop Jewell, and Doctor Willet, was no act of mine. Seventhly, I hindered the printing of no new Books againſt Popery. Eightly, the queſtioning of Maſter Prynne, Maſter Burton, and the reſt in the High Commiſſion, was no act of mine, but the Courts; nor were they cenſured, but got off without cenſure: Maſter Burton ſaid, he was queſtioned before the Counſell Table for one of his Books, as a Libell: If it were a Libell, there was cauſe to doe it. He added, he could not be quiet for being troubled in the high Commiſſion; nor could the Church be quiet for him, which was the cauſe of his trouble. He affirmed, I committed him to the Fleet, and denied him the benefit of the Petition of Right. I anſwer, there was cauſe enough for his commitment, for printing of Books without licenſe, and for diſturbing the peace of the Church, and he had the benefit of the Petition of Right, becauſe the reaſon of his commitment was expreſſed in the Warrant. Ninthly, I licenſed none of the particular books forecited my ſelfe, nor any of my Chaplains to my knowledge, I am certaine not by my command, and if any of them have tranſgreſſed herein, themſelves muſt anſwer for it, not I; who having many other weighty publike affaires to look after, had no time to peruſe or licenſe Books my ſelfe, and was enforced to commit this truſt to their care. Tenthly, to the particular books I anſwer, Firſt, that though Sales his book was licenſed by my Chaplaine, yet he was abuſed therein, by the Tranſlator & Printer, who was puniſhed for it in Star-chamber: The book it ſelf was called in and burnt by Proclamation, and I diſmiſſed the Doctor for licenſing it out of my houſe and ſervice: For Christs Epistle to a devout Soule, it was licenſed at London Houſe, by Doctor Weeks, the Biſhop of Londons Chaplain, not mine, and ſo nothing to me; beſides, it was ſuppreſſed before it was publiſhed: For Doctor Heylins Books, they are nothing to me, I had no hand in them, nor yet in Doctor Pocklingtons, who hath been cenſured for them himſelfe: For Biſhop Mountagues Impreſſions, they concerne not me, I did neitheir adviſe nor authorize them: For the Lives of the Emperours, which commend the Councell of Trent, the Book was not licenſed, and I know not of it. For the Popiſh Index Biblicus printed in England, it is nothing to me, it was without my privity and direction: For the ſeverall popiſh paſſages objected out of ſome newbooks, the Authors themſelvs muſt anſwer them at their perill, they concerne not me: For the rejecting of Maſter Prynnes Croſſe Bill in Star-chamber, complaining of theſe popiſh Books and Doctrines, it was none of my act, but the Courts and Lord Keeper Coventries; and ſo was M^r. Burtons cenſure for his Book, in which I gave no Vote: For Maſter Croxtons Letter to me with a Croſſe, enjoyning Auricular confeſſion, I could not hinder it, nor his practiſe of confeſſion being in Ireland: And for the paſſages objected out of mine owne Speech in Star-chamber, that they imply and neceſſarily inferre the popiſh Doctrine of Tranſubstantiation, and the giving of divine worſhip to the Altar, even the ſame that is given to God. I anſwer, that neither of theſe can be inferred from thence; for my words onelyonly imply, that Christs body is truly and really preſent in the Sacrament; yet not corporally, but in a ſpirituall manner, and ſo is received by us; which is no more then Maſter Calvin himſelfe affirmes on the 1 Cor. 11. 24. where thus he writes: Neque enim mortis tantum & Reſurrectionis ſuae beneficium nobis offert Christus, ſed corpus ſuum in quo paſſus eſt & Reſurrexit: Concludo, REALITER (ut vulgo loquuntur) id eſt, VERE Nobis in Coena datur Chriſti corpus, ut ſic A…imis p. 515Nostris in Cibum ſalutarem; and Maſter Perkins himſelfe faith as much. For my words, that we ſhould bow DEO ET ALTARI, which are coupled both together with a Conjunction Copulative, yea both bowed to at the ſelf-ſame time, in one and the ſame act, and the worſhip directed to, and terminated in both alike: Ergo, divine worſhip is given to the Altar herein as well as to God, which is flat Idolatry, or but ſuch civill reverence given to God as is rendred to the Altar; which is to diſhonour God, and gives him no greater worſhip in his houſe then is due unto a creature: I anſwer, that though the act of bowing be the ſame to both, yet the object, mind and intention being different, the worſhip muſt be ſo too; There is a double worſhip and bowing, one of the body, the other of the heart, as Maſter Perkins himſelfe diſtinguiſheth; which is properly called Veneration, when done but to a creature in a civill reſpect, and worſhip onelyonly when given to God himſelf.

To this was replied, Ferſt, that this Decree of Star-chamber concerning printing was onelyonly his owne act originally, who projected and put that Court upon it, Reply.(whereof he was an over-potent Member) theirs onelyonly Miniſterially, to ſatisfie his importunity therein, as the forecited Paſſages in the Decreee it ſelfe, and our Witneſſes atteſt: Yea, the printing of it was by his own command, to enlarge his Juriſdiction, which it much advanced: We grant that ſome things in the Decree were good, approved of by the Stationers, who deſired the ſame, of which we complain not, and ſome particulars very uſefull, had a right uſe been made of them. But the prohibiting reprinting of all Orthodox Books formerly printed by authority, unleſſe re-licenſed by him or his Agents; the deniall of any old book to be reprinted even againſt Popery it ſelfe, with the ſuppreſſing or purging moſt new Books againſt Popery, under pretext of this Decree, and the arbitrary puniſhing ſuch who tranſgreſſed herein both in the Star-chamber and High Commiſſion, was a tranſcendent crime, of which this Arch-prelat and his Confederates (not the whole Court of Star-chamber) were onelyonly culpable: Yea, the Stationers were ſo farre from being well pleaſed with, or returning him thanks for this, that they complained to the chiefe Juſtice, and groaned under the preſſure thereof. Secondly, the Engliſh Bible with the Geneva Notes, was not onelyonly tolerated but printed and reprinted among us in England, Cum Privilegio, during Queen Elizabeths and King James Reignes; and in 15. Jacobi there was an Impreſſion of them printed here by the Kings own Printer; ſince which time, the new Tranſlation without Notes being moſt vendible (the Kings Printers forbearing to print them for their private lucre, not by vertue of any publike reſtraint) they were uſually imported from beyond the Seas, and publickly ſold without any inhibition or puniſhment, till this Archbiſhops time, who made it no leſſe then an High Commiſſion crime, to vend, bind or import them. For the Notes, they are generally approved by all our Protestant Divines, which fled hence for Religion in Queen Maries dayes, who dedicated the ſame to Queen Elizabeth. For the Note on Exodus 1. it is both ſound and Orthodox, condemning onelyonly obedience to the arbitrary, tyranicall, unjunſt (not lawfull) commands of Kings, contrary to the Lawes of God, nature, men, being warranted by the example of the Midwives, who diſobeyed King Pharaohs bloody Mandate, in not murdering all the male Children of the Iſraelites, by ſundry other ddEſter 3, 2, 3, Dan. 2. 5. to 17 cap. 3. 3. to 30 cap. 6. 5. to 21. 1 Sam. 22. 17, 18. 2 Sam. 1. 2, 10. Acts 4. 18, 19. cap. 5. 28. to 41.Dan 2:5–171 Sam 22:171 Sam 22:182 Sam 1:22 Sam 1:10Acts 4:18Acts 4:19Scripture Texts; yea, warranted by the Fathers and eeSee Gratian Cauſa 11. qu. 3. Bernard. de Modo bene vivendi, cap. 19. Tertul. Apolog.Canoniſts themſelves, who ſpeake as much or more then this Annotation doth. For King James his cenſure of this Tranſlation and Notes upon it, no doubt it proceeded from ſome Prelats miſ-information: However, we are certain that his own inſerting of popiſh Pictures of the Birth, Life, Paſſion, Reſurrection and Aſcention of Chriſt, the Holy Ghoſt, the Apoſtles, yea the very Aſſumption of the Virgin Mary, and the like, into our Engliſh, and of a Popiſh Index into our Latin Bibles, was farre worſe, more dangerous then any Geneva Notes; and the prohibition of inſerting Marginall Notes into the Bible, a policy learned from our Engliſh Prelats in King HRNRY the eighth his p. 516Reigne, who when they could not hinder the printing of the Bible it ſelfe in Engliſh, of Master Tyndals Tranſlation; yet procured an Act of Parliament for the Obliterating of his Notes thereon; as the Statute of 35. Hen. VIII. cap. 1. and Maſter ffActs & Monuments, vol. 2. p. 586. 587.Fox informes us: And his endeavour to hinder the importation of Bibles with Notes from Holland, of which he had information by two Letters ſent from thence, diſcovers his vigilance, yea, ſpite againſt this Tranſlation and the Notes upon it.

Thirdly, for Maſter Gellibrands Almanacke, ſet forth by his ſervant, it was agreeable to Maſter Foz his Calender; onelyonly inſerting our Engliſh Martyrs in the place of popiſh Saints; no High Commiſſion crime by any knowne Law; That it differed from other Almanacks herein, is no greater offence, then for one Almanack-maker to vary from another in calculating the Weather, or other Astronomicall Obſervations, who better deſerve an High Commiſſion cenſure for retaining the names of ſundry Popiſh Saints, (yea arrant Traytors, as Becket, Anſelme, with ſundry others) omitted in the Calender of the Common-Prayer Book, and agreeing Verbatim with the Calender in the Roman Miſſall, then he, for omitting the names of Romiſh Saints, whom God never Canonized, but the Pope alone, for their zeale or ſufferings for the Papall Cauſe and Romiſh Superſtitions. The Queens ſending to him about this Almanack, ſhewes, that the Papiſts took it to be a great blow to their Religion; and though he could not hinder the meſſage, yet certainly he might have ſurceaſed all proſecution of M^r Gellibrand upon the Queens and Papiſts complaints for this act of his, where as he purſued him with al violence to gratifie them. For the words he remembers not, our Witneſſe ſwears them preciſely, and his threatning Maſter Gellibrand upon a meere groundleſſe ſuppoſition, that he had raiſed a faction in the Court, becauſe they acquitted him full ſore againſt his will; argues both his violence and injuſtice: That the Papiſts burnt it, when he could not attaine the burning of it in the High Commiſſion, argues their malice, and his owne readineſſe to comply with them againſt ſo good a work, in honour of our owne Engliſh Proteſtant Martyrs. For his omiſſion of ſome Saints, viz. the Epiphany and Anunciation, no man knew them to be Saints till now, but onelyonly Feſtivals, which other Almanacks mentioned, and it is onelyonly alleaged not proved that he omitted them. For Doctor Pocklingtons Altare Christianum, it was licenſed by his owne Chaplaine Doctor Bray, yea publiſhed by his owne command, without the Authors privity, if we beleeve his Petition to the Lords; and their two puniſhments, cenſures in the Lords Houſe for this Book, adjudged to the fire and burnt, is no extenuation, but aggravation of his guilt, the moſt culpable of all three: Himſelfe confeſſeth, that his Chaplaines act is his owne in Law, if he command it, and this Doctor himſelfe affirmes, that he did command its printing; therefore the act is his more then the Authors or his Chaplains, who did but obey his ſuperiour command. That Doctor Pocklington did preſent him with both the printed Impreſſions of this Book, curiouſly gilt, he cannot deny, they being found in his Study endorſed with his owne hand: That he knew not of this paſſage in it againſt our Martyrs, and in honour of Popiſh Saints, is not probable, yea, impoſſible, ſince generally complained of in print, and particularly by Maſter Prynne at the Pillory, who deſired all to take notice of it; of which the Archbiſhop had preſent information, yet neither recalled the book nor obliterated the paſſage.

Fourthly, the calling in of M^r Beacons book againſt the Maſſe, upon the complaint of a Prieſt or Jeſuit, with his words and threats to Miſtris Griffin, for reprinting it at ſuch a time as this, reflect as fouly upon him as poſſible yet he puts it off with this impudent common ſhift, It is nothing to me: For the reprinting and his calling of it in, it is directly ſworne to be before the Star-chamber Decree, therefore not done in purſuance of it; and were it done after, yet not juſtifiable without higheſt impudency by any true Proteſtant Prelate.

p. 517Fiftly, for the Palſgraves Religion, it is proved to be called in by him, who hath the happineſſe to forget all the evil deeds which he cannot juſtifie, though others ſweare them: And it was not contrary to the Kings Declaration (which himſelfe originally contrived) in the Kings intention, but in his owne perverting of it, to ſuppreſſe the truth. Sixtly, the hindering of the reprinting of Maſter Fox, Biſhop Jewel and Doctor Willets Works, was certainly his owne act, becauſe done by colour of this Star-chamber Decree, procured by himſelfe for this very purpoſe, and the reprinting of them was ſtopped by his owne Officers, creatures meanes, who knew his mind, if not received his command herein: Seventhly, himſelfe, if not immediatly, yet originally and mediatly hindered the printing of all the new Books againſt Popery, refuſed at the Preſſe, and denied licenſe by his Inſtruments, Chaplaines, Doctor Bray, Doctor Haywood, Doctor Weekes, Doctor Baker, unleſſe firſt purged by them.

Ninthly, the queſtioning of Maſter Prynne, Maſter Burton, with their Printers and Stationers in the High Commiſſion, for their Books againſt Doctor Coſins his popery, Babel no Bethel, Baiting of the Popes Bull, and the like, was originally his act alone, not the Courts, which did naught in it but by his inſtigation: Their getting off thence was by Prohibitions, ſore againſt his will, where elſe he reſolved to ruine them. Maſter Burtons anſwering the Popes Bull by licenſe, deſerved no queſtioning at the Counſell Table, and was certainly no Libell at all, unleſſe the Pope or his Partiſans deemed it ſuch to them: His Books then were no trouble to the Church, and therefore it was ſtrange and moſt unjuſt he ſhould be troubled for them; yea, his impriſonment without Baile (which he tendered) when bailable by Law, was contrary to Magna Charta and the Petition of Right, though the cauſe of it (not warranted by Law) was expreſſed in the Warrant. Tenthly, his owne Chaplaines overſights and offences in licenſing popiſh Books, even with this ſpeciall Encomium, that there was nothing in them contrary to faith and ſound Doctrine (the forme of licenſing himſelfe preſcribed them under his owne hand) is certainly both in law and juſtice, his owne crime more then theirs, who muſt anſwer for it much more then they; the truſt of licenſing books being originally repoſed in himſelfe by the State, and in his Chaplaines onelyonly by his owne Deputation, for ggSee 27. Ed. 3 Stat. 2. c. 19.whom he muſt anſwer at his perill: To prove this, and take away this poore evaſion, which he ſo much inſiſts on, we ſhall put but theſe few caſes ggSee 27. Ed. 3 Stat. 2. c. 19.adjudged in Law; hh5. E. 3. c. 8. 19. H. 7 c 10. Brooks & Fitz. herberts Abrigment. Tit. Eſca. See the Sherifs Oaths in Daltons Office of Sherifs and Regiſter, f. 301. b. Quo ne prendres nul Bailleif en voſtre ſervice, pus qu y vous ne voylles reſpondre.If a Bailiffe, under Jaylor, or under Sheriffe ſuffer a priſoner to eſcape, or any way to miſdemeane themſelves in their office, an action of eſcape, debt (an fine in caſes of felony and treaſon,) and action of the caſe lyeth againſt the high Sheriffe and chiefe Jaylor for it, who muſt undergoe the penalty and blame, becauſe they are their ſervants, entruſted by themſelues: And to put a caſe, which comes neerer home, and is farre ſtronger then this of a Chaplaine, 21. E. 1. membr. 3. Dorſo Clauſo, and in the Pleas of that Parliament, placit. 17. John Archbiſhop of Yorke was queſtioned in Parliament, for excommunicating William of Willicon, and John Rowman, ſervants to the Biſhop of Durham, then imployed in the Kings ſervice; the Archbiſhop pleaded juſt as this Archbiſhop doth now, That they were not excommunicated by himſelfe, but onelyonly by his Commiſſary, who muſt anſwer for it, and ſo no act of his for which he ought to anſwer: But yet notwithſtanding, it was upon ſerious debate reſolved in Parliament, that the Act of his Commiſſary being his owne immediate Officer, was his owne act, for whoſe miſdemeanour he muſt anſwer, and thereupon he was fined 4000. markes to the King, and forced to pay it, (a great fine in thoſe times for ſuch an offence) yea gladed to make many friends to the King to avoid a further cenſure: which is farre ſtronger then the caſe of this Archprelate: For this ii5: E. 3.Commiſſary was an Officer eſtabliſhed by Law, which the Archbiſhop could not remove at pleaſure without juſt cauſe; but his Chaplaines were no Officers by Law, but meer meniall ſervants, under his immediate command, and removable at pleaſure; therefore certainly, they durſt licenſe nothing eſpecially againſt our eſtabliſhed Religion, without his privity and command: Beſides, there were never any ſuch popiſh Books authorized ſince the beginning p. 518of Reformation in any of his Predeceſſors times, by themſelves or their Chaplaines, neither durſt ſuch erronious pamphlets appeare publickly amongſt us, till he grew great to patronize them; yea, when they were thus licenſed, and publickly complained againſt, as Popiſh, erronious, and deſtructive to our Religion, he cenſured, perſecuted ſuch who durſt complaine or write againſt them, never queſtioning nor puniſhing the Licenſers, Printers or Authors of them exemplarily as he ſhould have done, to diſcharge the truſt repoſed in him, and vindicate his ſincerity herein; whereas if any new Book againſt Arminians or Popiſh Innovations did but privily paſſe the Preſſe by licenſe of his Predeceſſors Chaplaines (as Biſhop Carltons Book againſt Mountague, Maſter Prynnes Perpetuity, his Survey of Maſter Cozens his Cozening Devotions, Hiſtriomaſtix, with other forenamed Impreſſions did) he preſently ſuppreſſed, burnt them, queſtioned the Authous, Printers, Diſperſers, Licenſers of them, both in the High Commiſſion and Star-chamber too, where Maſter Prynne by his meanes, was cenſured in the higheſt degree of extremity for his Hiſtriomaſtix, a licenſed Book, and Maſter Buckner too, who licenſed it, fined by this Archbiſhop himſelfe and that Court; therefore this act of his Chaplaines muſt reſt upon his own head, and the guilt thereof lye heavieſt upon him, whoſe fault it was to make choyce of ſuch, and to entruſt them in this kind. As for his excuſe of his many other grand imployments, which ſo engroſſed his time, that he had no leiſure to peruſe what Books were tendred and licenſed for the Preſſe, it is ſo farre from being any excuſe, that it aggavates his crime: Certainly the preſervation of our Religion in its purity, the keeping out all Popiſh innovations in Ceremony, Doctrine, Worſhip, and the ſuppreſſion of Popiſh errours, Books, Doctrines, were the principall things of all others, which his Place, Calling, yea, his Majeſties truſt engaged him to look unto; for him then to neglect this principall part of his Epiſcopall duty, the frequent preaching of Gods Word (he ſeldome appearing in the Pulpit after he became Archbiſhop and a Privy Counſellour) to drowne himſelfe in all manner of ſecular imployments in the Star-chamber, Counſel-Chamber, Exchequer, ſpending his time in proling about Tobacco; Licenſes, illegall Taxes, Projects, Monopolies of all ſorts, contrary to the Lawes and Liberties of the Subjects, in undermining Parliaments, oppreſſing the people every where, and managing the Kings Revenues, (things no way ſuitable to his ſpirituall Function;) is ſo farre from extenuating, that it puts the higheſt degree of aggravation upon this his negligence and Chaplaines miſdemeanours, which he ſhould have better looked too: But admit the reall duties of his Place alone had been overburthenſome to him, he ſhould then have intruſted, imployed ſuch in Licenſing and peruſing Books, who would have diſcharged the truſt repoſed in them, in farre better manner then his knowne Popiſh and Arminian Chaplains did. Tenthly, to his excuſes touching the particular Popiſh Books objected: We anſwer, firſt, that Sales his Booke was Licenſed by Doctor Haywood, his own Chaplain: that he was not abuſed in it, but the Printer, whom he checked for complaining to him of the Popiſh paſſages in the Booke, and encouraged to proceed in the printing of it, which otherwiſe he durſt not have printed. That it was afterwards called in and publickly burnt, was no thanks to him or his Chaplain, but to Maſter Prynnes croſſe Bill againſt him and his Chaplaine in Star-Chamber for licenſing it; As for the Proclamation for calling it in, it was but a meere device to abuſe the King, Kingdome, to juſtifie or excuſe his peccant Chaplain and himſelfe, by a moſt falſe relation of the carriage of the buſineſſe. Beſides, if his Chaplain was innocent, Why then doth he pretend, he puniſhed him by turning him out of his ſervice? If guilty, Why doth he juſtifie him to the King and Kingdome by this Proclamation? But indeed this pretended puniſhment was but a meere pretence; for he puniſhed him onelyonly with a good Living, to wit, Saint Giles in the Fields, ſending him from Lambeth thither to infect that Pariſh with his Popiſh Leproſie, or to pleaſe the Papiſts, Prieſts, Jeſuits, of which there were more reſiding in that Pariſh p. 519alone, then in all the Pariſhes about London. For Christs Epistle to a Devout Soule, that it was licenſed by Doctor Weekes at London-houſe the ſelf-ſame day that Sales was at Lambeth; is true, but yet it is as true that Doctor Weeks was this Archbiſhops owne Chaplaine, and the Biſhop of London his meer creature Servant, yea it appears there was a ſtrong confederacy between the Chaplaines of Lambeth and London-houſe in licenſing both theſe Popiſh Books for the ſame Stationer the ſelf-ſame day, to propagate and licenſe Popery with a witneſſe, even juſt at that very ſeaſon, (which makes it more remarkable) when Maſter Prynne, Maſter Burton, and Doctor Bastwicke were proſecuted by their good Lord and Maſter Canterbury in the Star-chamber, for oppoſing their Popiſh Innovations, Impoſitions, Doctrins, and juſt when the gaudy Crucifix was erected by him at White-hall in the Kings owne Chappell in Paſſion week, they then thinking all cock-ſure on their ſide: That this Epiſtle was ſuppreſſed, we may thank, not the Archbiſhop, but Maſter Prynn's Croſſe-bill, who but a few weeks after was ill requited with a bloody barbarous cenſure for his paines, and ſent away hence cloſe priſoner, firſt, into North-Wales, then into Jerſey, where none muſt have acceſſe unto him, to prevent any more ſuch oppoſitions, diſcoveries of popiſh Bookes and Bils againſt them. For Doctor Heylins Books complained of, they were ſome of them purpoſely written by the Archbiſhops owne command, as he hath confeſſed (to wit, that againſt M^r. Burton & Antidotum Lincolnienſes) & licenſed by his own Chaplaines; therefore they concerne him much: For Doctor Pocklingtons Popiſh Impreſſions, they were peruſed by himſelfe, yea, publiſhed by his direction without the Doctors privity, as his Petition manifeſts; therefore his cenſure for writing them, will be no excuſe for his owne publiſhing, or his Chaplaines authorizing them without the Doctors knowledge or deſire: For Biſhop Mountagues Books, they were all bound up (moſt of them with his Armes very rightly gilt) and preſented to him by Mountague himſelfe; after that, entertained by him in his Study, juſtified by him in private conferences, yea, the later of them expreſly ſubmitted to his judgement, diſpoſe, and licenſed by his Chaplaines; and yet are they nothing to him? For the Epitome of the Lives of the Emperours, it was licenſed by his owne Chaplaine Doctor Weekes, at London-houſe, as the licenſe and entry of it in the Stationers Hall (which we have here ready to produce) atteſts: That he took no notice of it, nor of what was in it, was his owne voluntary negligence, who could take notice of any the leaſt pretended Puritannicall, Anti-epiſcopall, or Anti-Arminian paſſages in all new printed Books whatſoever; yea, of any harſh paſſages againſt the Pope, Papiſts, Jeſuits, and cauſe them to be ſuppreſſed, expunged, and the Authors of them ſometimes to be deeply cenſured: For the Popiſh Index Biblicus, being printed here in London, then publikely bound up with our Latin Bibles of Junius and Tremelius tranſlation (with which they as well accorded as Fire doth with Water, or Popery with Proteſtaniſme) it concerned him moſt of any thing to take notice of, and have moſt ſeverely puniſhed: But this vigilant Argus againſt Protestaniſme, or any thing that trenched upon Epiſcopacy, Popiſh Ceremonies, Arminianiſme, or the High Commiſſion, was here as blind as a Beetle, and could eſpye no Books at all (though never ſo groſſe) that made for Popery and popiſh Innovations, or elſe fell faſt aſleep, when he ſhould watch againſt theſe popiſh enemies, who ſowed their Tarts ſo faſt among us.

For the objected popiſh paſſages out of theſe now Authorized Printed Authors, himſelfe muſt anſwer for them:

Firſt, becauſe many of them were particularly complained againſt by Maſter Burton in his Sermon for God and the King; by Maſter Prynne in his Croſſe Bill, which he read, and by ſundry printed Books, which he could not but take notice of; yet he neither ſuppreſſed the Books, nor queſtioned the Authors, Printers or diſperſers of them. Secōdly, becauſe never any ſuch large crop or harveſt of Popiſh Books and Tares appeared or ſprung up in our Engliſh Church before his time, ſince the beginning of Reformation; it being the chiefe part of his place and p. 520Office as Archbiſhop of Canterbury to ſuppreſſe and extirpate, whereas he authorized and propagated them all he could. For the rejecting of Maſter Prynnes Croſſe Bill in Star-chamber againſt him, his Chaplaines and Confederates for Writing, Licenſing, Publiſhing theſe Popiſh Books and Paſſages, it was principally his owne Act, who ſtopped it at the Lord Keepers; was preſent when it was rejected in open Court (where he ſat as one of the moſt ſwaying Judges) and endeavoured to have brought him in danger of his life, onelyonly for preferring it in a Legall manner; whereas had he, his Chaplaines, Confederates been Innocent, they would have Petitioned the Court it might have been received, that ſo they might legally have cleared themſelves (if they could) of that, which now (bleſſed be God) we have fully proved before an Higher Tribunall, for which this cauſe by Gods providence was reſerved, as the fitteſt Court both to heare and cenſure it. For Maſter Croxtons Letter; he was his owne creature, ſpecially recommended by him to the Lord Deputy Wentworth, who preferred him for his ſake: and he that durſt preferre ſuch a Popiſh Prieſt in that Popiſh Kingdome, who dared thus openly to put the Maſſe-Prieſts, yea Jeſuits badge of a Croſſe in the Front of his Letter to him, and acquaint him with this open practice of Auricular Confeſſion; muſt doubtleſſe be no wel-wiſher to our Religion, and aſſured of the Archbiſhops readineſſe to concur with him in the approbation of his courſes, elſe he durſt not write thus to him.

As for that paſſage in his Speech in Star-chamber; we have kkPag. 203. 204already proved, that it neceſſarily implyes a Tranſubſtantiation, or corporall preſence of Chriſt on the very Altar. For, there (ſaith he, not in and to the beleevers heart, receiving him ſpiritually by faith) tis, Hoc eſt corpus meum, &c. and A greater reverence no doubt is due TO THE BODY, then to the word of the Lord. Its true, our 28. Article reſolves, That in the Lords Supper, to ſuch as rightly, worthily and with faith receive the ſame, the bread which we breake is a partaking of the Body of Chriſts which is given, taken and eaten in the Supper, ONLY after an heavenly and ſpirituall manner. And the meane whereby the Body of Chriſt is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. And in this ſence Maſter Calvin writes, that the very Body of Chriſt wherein he ſuffered and roſe againe, is offered to us, & REALLY & TRƲLY given unto us in the Supper, in a ſpirituall manner onelyonly. But did ever our Articles, M^r Calvin, or any Proreſtant writers hold, That Chriſts body was really or truly preſent upon the Altar (where it is, ſaith he, uſually preſent, and the greateſt place of Chriſts reſidence upon earth) or more preſent then in his Word. Certainly, never any Proteſtant Author, but only Papiſts writ ſo before himſelf. And where doth Maſter Calvin ſay Chriſts body is, which we really and truly receive in the Lords Supper? What? on the Altar? there is no ſuch ſyllable in him; but the very next words, which the Biſhop purpoſely concealed, reſolve us, that it is in heaven; llCalvin inChriſtum IN CAELO MANENTEM ô Nobis recipi, ſine ut in celeſti ſun gloria maneat, & illuc aſpici, & inde ſe tibi communicet. The like our Common 1 Cor. 11.1 Cor 11Prayer-Booke and Homilies alſo reſolve. Therefore they call on us, Surſum corda, to lift up our hearts and faith to heaven, and feed upon Chriſt there; not on the Altar. This Cobweb diſtinction therefore of his (eſpecially if compared with the mmSee A neceſſary Introduction to the Archbiſhops Tryall, p. 159. to 163.Alterations and Additions made by him in the Scottiſh Common-Prayer-Booke; where he cleerly maintains a Tranſubstantiation) will no wayes cover his ſhame, or take off his guilt. As for his DEO & Altari, the Argument preſſed againſt him from it is ſtill unanſwered: ſince one and the ſelfe-ſame worſhip in one and the ſelfe-ſame act, inſtance, is given joyntly to both. And whereas he ſaith, the object diſtinguiſheth the worſhip; it is moſt falſe; ſince nnSee Mr. Rutherfords Divin right of church Government, ch. 1. queſt. 5.Divine worſhip is and may be given to an Altar, an Image, a creature, a peece of Bread (as among the Pagans and Papiſts) as well as to God himſelfe. So that this whole part of our Evidence remaines unanſwered, unſhaken in any particular, and is onelyonly aggravated by his poore evaſions, his impudent juſtifications, of what he hath cauſe to be moſt aſhamed, if not confounded, before ſuch a great Tribunall and judicious Auditory.

p. 521The eleventh charge againſt me is, the expunging of ſundry paſſages againſt Object. 11.Popery, Arminianiſme, &c. out of ſeverall printed Books and Sermons, by me and others, before they could paſſe the Preſſe, which Paſſages have been reduced to ſeverall heads: I ſhall not recapitulate the charges of this kind, but anſwer them ſeverally in their order.

The firſt of them is my own ooPag. 245. &c. Anſwer.purging out of Doctor Sibthops Sermon ſundry paſſages againſt Popery, evil Counſellours and prophaners of the Sabbath.Object. 1.

To which I anſwer, Firſt, that the King committed the peruſall of this Sermon to four Biſhops, whereof I was but one, and theſe expunctions were made by their conſent, not by me alone: Secondly, the firſt of them ſeemed to lay an aſperſion on the Emperour, the King of Spaine and France, the Duke of Bavaria and Archdutcheſſe, as if they had a deſigne to extirpate the Proteſtant Religion; therefore it was not thought fit it ſhould paſſe the Preſſe, for feare of giving offence to them: Thirdly, the ſecond of them ſeemed to caſt an aſperſion upon the Kings Counſell, and was therefore croſſed out: The third gives the name of the Sabbath to the Lords day, which is never ſo termed in the new Teſtament; appropriated to the Jewiſh Sabbath only on the Saturday, now wholly abbrogated; and likewiſe makes Popery to trench upon the breach of the firſt Commandement: which being a thing doubtfull and diſputable, was thought fit to be expunged.

To which was replied, Firſt, that the committing of this Sermon to three other Biſhops beſides himſelfe to be examined, is a bare averment of his owne Reply.without any proofe; that any other peruſed it beſides himſelfe, appeares not: All the additions, purgations in it, are made with his owne hand onelyonly, and none others, therefore his alone; yea, if he did it jointly with others, this will not extenuate his fault, ſince as we muſt not doe evill alone, ſo we muſt ppExod. 28. 2.Exod 28:2not follow a multitude to doe it. His anſwers to theſe expunged particulars, are moſt abſurd and falſe: For the firſt of them was ſo farre from being a ſcandall, that it was then (and yet is) a moſt qqSee A neceſſary Introduction, &c. pag. 86 c. 17.apparent truth, publiſhed to all the Kingdome in the Kings owne Letters to every County throughout the Realme, concerning the Loane in February 1627. to draw it on, and the Doctor in his Sermon to ſet on this Loane, did but tranſcribe it out of the Kings owne Letter; if then it were a reall truth, why was it blotted out of his Sermon, more then out of the Kings owne Letter? If a ſcandall and untruth, why did the King and his Counſell then publiſh it in their Letters, to delude the people and draw on the Loane? But the truth is, our Religion muſt be rooted out abroad by the Emperour, Kings of Spaine, France, with their Confederates, and undermined by the Prelaticall and popiſh party at home, yet we muſt have no liberty to ſpeak of it our ſelves, or publiſh it to others, for feare of preventing the deſigne: For the ſecond clauſe, he thought it might reflect on, or riſe up in judgement one day againſt himſelfe, therefore it was wiſdome for him to raſe it out; the Kings evill Counſellours by this meanes muſt neither be reprehended nor puniſhed: For the third paſſage, it is true, that the Lords day is not directly ſtiled the Sabbath in the New Teſtament, yet it is termed the firſt rrMat. 28. 1. Mark. 16. 1. Luk. 24. 1. 1 Cor. 26. 1.Matt 28:1Mark 16:1Luke 24:1of the SABBATHS oft times in it; but admit it were not, yet ſeeing all dayes of ſacred reſt and worſhip whatſoever, are ſtiled ssLevi. 16: 31. c. 23. 24. 32. 32. c. 25. 2. 4. 6 c. 19. 3. 30. c. 26. 2. 3. 4. 35. 2 Cron. 8. 13. c. 31. Iſa. 1. 13. c. 56. 4. Lam. 2 6. Ezek. 46. 3 Hoſ. 2. 11. Col. 2. 16.Isa 1:13Lam 2:6Ezek 46:3Hos 2:11Col 2:16Sabbaths, both in the Old and New Teſtament, and the Sabbath in its proper Definition, is nothing elſe, but a weekly day of ſacred reſt from worldly labours, pleaſures, imployments, devoted wholly to Gods publique and private worſhip; and the Lords day is ſuch a Sabbath as this, and ſo termed by ttSee Sunday a Sabbath, and M. Lee of the Sabbath.Councels, Fathers, forraigne writers of all ſorts, and more eſpecially by our owne Engliſh vv13. Eli. c. 16Statutes, Homilies, Proclamations, Letters-Patents, Canons, Biſhops viſitation Articles, and Writers of all ſorts; why this paſſage concerning the Lords day Sabbaths ſanctification, and the prophanation of it, ſhould be obliterated by him, no reaſon can be rendred, but onelyonly the prophane Anti-ſabbatarian Diſpoſition of his owne heart, which ſoon after more publiquely diſplayed it ſelfe, in the re-publiſhing and preſſing the Declaration for Lordſ-day ſports: p. 522ſports: For the latter clauſe of this deleted period, concerning connivance at Popery, which trencheth upon the firſt and ſecond Commandement, and making the Lawes concerning it, meer Engines of State, to draw reward for toleration, diſpenſation and connivance, &c. his excuſe is moſt miſerable and ridiculous: For firſt, it is generally agreed by all Proteſtant Writers, that Popery trencheth upon the firſt Commandement, by advancing the xxSee Officium …eatae Mariae …èrnardinus De …usti his Meriale. Biſhop Uſhers anſwer to the Jeſuits Chalenge Mornay his Miſtery of Iniquity. Doctor Reinolds de Idolatria Romano Eccleſiae. Maſter Rutherfords Divine RIGHT of Church Government, cap 1. Sect. 5.Virgin Mary, Pope (to omit the Bredden Wafer) into the very Throne of God himſelfe, and Deifying them both with divine Titles, Adorations, Attributes, Epithites, Oriſons, and the like; therefore no reaſon to delete this clauſe, that it trencheth on the firſt Commandement: the rather, becauſe Paul himſelfe affirmes it in direct termes, 2 Theſ. 2. 3, 4. as all orthodox Expoſitors reſolve: Secondly, its agreed by all Proteſtants, yea, by this Arch-Prelat himſelfe (in ſhew at leaſt, when his reputation ſeemed to be ſomewhat blaſted, as if he were devoted to Popery) and expreſly reſolved by our Homilies againſt the perill of Idolatry, that Popery expreſly trencheth upon the ſecond Commandement ſundry wayes, as by adoring Crucifixes, Images, Saints, Angels, Reliques, Altars, the conſecrated Hoaſt, yea, by invocation of Saints departed, and introduction of ſundry Idolatrous Superstitious Rites, Ceremonies, formes of Worſhip, invented by Popes, Prieſts, Fryars, into the Worſhip of God: Therefore had he deleted its intrenchment upon the firſt Commandement as dubious, yet ſince there is no queſtion of their tranſgreſſing the ſecond in all theſe particulars, his abolition thereof is inexcuſable, and diſplayes his popiſh diſpoſition: Thirdly, however had he deleted this likewiſe, yet his obliterating that which followes, againſt connivance at, and ſuſpention of Lawes againſt Popery and Papists for luchre ſake, leaſt God make the gaine gotten by this dividing betwixt him and Idols, to be like that of Solomons, which was recompenced with the loſſe and dividing of his Kingdome betwixt his Sonne and a Stranger, &c. (the ſad effects whereof we have lately felt) with all other paſſages whatſoever againſt Popery (eſpecially at this juncture of time, when all forraigne popiſh Princes had confederated to extirpate the Proteſtant Religion in forraigne parts, as the firſt deleted paſſage informes us) is ſuch an unſufferable execrable crime, in one who pretends himſelfe a Proteſtant Biſhop, and had then no legall authority to correct or licenſe Books for the Preſſe, as deſerves the higheſt cenſure; yea, diſplays to all the world the hidden Popery of his heart, if not his ſecret correſpondency with the Romiſh party to replant their falſe ſuperſtitious Religion and Idolatry in our Church; and from this originall purgation of his, we may viſibly diſcover, that all ſucceeding expunctions of this kind made by his owne chaplains and other Agents at Lambeth or London-houſe, proceeded primarily from himſelf, as the originall cauſe and Author of them.

The ſecond Objection of this kind is, my alterations of the Prayers yySee here pag 246. 247.appointed for the fift of November, in ſome particular cauſes in the Impreſſion of them, Objection 2.Anno 1635.

To this I anſwer, Firſt, that theſe alterations were not made by me, but the Anſwer.Prayers were ſent unto me altered by the King himſelfe, who commanded me to ſee them printed according to thoſe alterations; and I have here the Books, with his Majeſties hand and Warrant to each of them for what I did: Secondly, that the expreſſions were ſomewhat overharſh, and fit to be altered, terming their very Religion, Rebellion, being but the Christian Religion, and the ſame with Ours, as I have proved at large in my Speech in Star-chamber, to which I muſt referre, where I have rendred reaſons for it, which gave generall ſatisfaction then, and I hope will doe ſo to your Lordſhips now.

To which was replied, Firſt, that the Archbiſhop ſhewes his great undutifulneſſe here in caſting this and other his unwarrantable popiſh actions on the King Reply.himſelfe: Secondly, that for ought appeares he procured from the King this Warrant ſince the alterations were printed, yea complained of, and that by circumvention: Thirdly, that it had been his duty to have diſſwaded the King from giving way to ſuch ſcandalous alterations in favour of Jeſuits, Papiſts, p. 523Traitors, and their bloody Religion. Fourthly, that himſelfe in his Speech, page 33, 34. confeſſeth, he made the Alterations himſelfe by the Kings command: Therefore the Book was not ſent him altered by the King or any other, as now he falſly pretends. Fiftly, as for the grounds of the moſt groſſe alteration mentioned in his Speech, we have zzPage 247, 248, 249.already refuted them at large in the Charge; therefore we ſhall not actum agere, but refer you thereunto.

The third aaHere pag. 249, 250. Anſwer.objected Purgation made by my ſelfe is, of ſome clauſes appointed in the Book for the Faſt, Anno 1636.Obje. 3.

To which I anſwer, Firſt, that it is not proved that I made theſe Purgations: Secondly, that I have given a full anſwer to, and ſhewed there was reaſon for the making of them, in my SPEECH in Star-chamber, where they were objected.

To this was replied, Firſt, that himſelfe doth both confeſſe and juſtifie thèſe Reply.purgations in his ſaid Speech, to be made by himſelfe, and his confederated brethren, to whom the care of this Faſt was committed; therefore he much forgets himſelfe here in denying it to be proved, when we undeniably evidenced it, by his owne printed Confeſſion: Secondly, we have already bbPage 242, 250, 251.refuted his reaſons for thoſe purgations mentioned in his Speech, diſcovering their abſurdity, and fully proving, that they were made meerly in favour of Popery, to which he hath not returned the leaſt ſhadow of anſwer; therefore we ſhall acquieſſe therein without further reply.

The ccPage 251, 252.fourth objected alterations and purgations aſcribed to my ſelfe, are in Objection 4.Doctor Potters Book, entituled, Want of Charity, &c. the ſecond Edition.

To which I anſwer, Firſt, that he writ to me of his own accord, to alter or correct any thing I thought meet in the ſecond Impreſſion of his Book, and what I did therein Anſwer.was upon his owne requeſt: Secondly, that the expreſſions I adviſed him to amend, were either ſuch as were very harſh, as Beleeve in the Pope; or ſomewhat obſcure, as The Idol of Rome, &c. Thirdly, that his expoſition of Matth. 18. 17, 11. Dic Eccleſiae, &c. concernes not the Parliament, but the Sanhedrin, or Civill Court of the Jewes: And whereas it is urged, that I writ, his Expoſition of it, ſeemes to give as much power to the Parliament, as to the Church (or Convocation) in Church affaires, which is a derogation to the Parliaments Juriſdiction; I conceive it to be none, ſince it appeares by the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 1. that the Parliament cannot determine any thing in matter of Religion, without aſſent of the Clergy in their Convocation; this Act, providing, That the High Commiſſioners ſhall not in any wiſe adjudge any matter to be Hereſie, but onelyonly ſuch as hath beene heretofore determined, ordered or adjudged to be Hereſie by the authority of the Canonicall Scriptures, or by the firſt foure generall Councels, or any of them, &c. or ſuch as ſhall be hereafter ordered, judged or determined to be Hereſie by the high Court of Parliament in this Realme, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE CLERGY IN THEIR CONVOCATION. Fourthly, that I did not alter or raſe out thoſe paſſages, but onelyonly left them to the Doctors owne conſideration, who thereupon of himſelf amended and left them out.

To this was replied, Firſt, that Doctor Potter writ to him onelyonly to correct or alter by his ſervant Master Dell or others, any thing in his Booke OFFENSIVE Reply.TO HIM: To which he returned this anſwer; I have done that which you have ſo deſired, &c. So as theſe very paſſages againſt the Pope and Papiſts were offenſive to him, as well as to them; at which (as it ſeems by the Doctors Letter) he had formerly taken ſome offence, elſe why ſhould he thus write to him, to alter and correct any thing in his Booke offenſive to his GRACE? It ſeemes by this, that whatever offended the Pope or Papiſts (be it but an harſh expreſſion) offended his Grace too, who was all for Charitable expreſſions towards them, who are ſo uncharitable towards us.

Secondly, for the expreſſions themſelves: The firſt of them is not ſo harſh, as true and fitting, ſince Papiſts not onelyonly beleeve the Pope, ddSee Auguſtinus Triumphus Bellarmini, & others paſſim.but beleeve in him too; p. 524viz. That his Expoſition of Scripture is infallible; that he cannot erre in his chaire; that this Lord God the Pope, cannot onelyonly pardon ſinnes, and releaſe ſoules out of purgatory at his pleaſure, but infallibly ſave all ſuch who adhere to, beleeve in, and truſt upon him for ſalvation. The latter of them, the Idol of Rome, is a proper Periphraſis or Character of the Pope himſelfe, who is there eeSee Morney his Myſtery of Iniquity.idolized, adored ſundry wayes.

Thirdly, the deleting his expoſition on Matth, 18. 17, 18. upon the reaſon rendred by him, is both derogatory and deſtructive to the Eccleſiasticall Juriſdiction of Parliaments, in Eccleſiaſticall cauſes and affaires, which ffSee Truth triumphing over Falſhood.our Parliaments have alwayes judged, ſetled, establiſhed in all Ages, oft times without, yea againſt the Clergies conſent, the Convocation onelyonly propounded, adviſed, and ſubmitted wholly to the Parliaments judgement: Yea, our Parliaments have made Lawes concerning Hereſie, its puniſhment, and matters of Religion, ſometimes without the Clergies conſent, as it is evident by the Statutes of 25 Hen. VIII. c. 14. 28 Hen. VIII. c. 10. 35 Hen. VIII. c. 5. 1 Edw. 6. c. 1. 2. & 12. with others: Sometimes upon their Petition and earneſt requeſt, as 5 Ric. II. c. 5. 2. Hen. IV. c. 15. (repealed, though never truly a Statute, ſince the Commons never conſented to them) 2 Hen. V. c. 7. Sometimes by their requeſt and advice too, as 31 Hen. VIII. c. 14. 34 Hen. VIII. c. 1. 1 k 2 Ph. & Mary, c. 6. As for the Statute of 1 Eliz. c. 1. it no wayes inferres, that the Parliament it ſelfe cannot adjudge or determine any Eccleſiaſticall matters without the aſſent of the Clergy in the Convocation (for then they had never caſt our Popery and the Popes uſurped authority which the Clergy ſtill maintained, nor wrought any reformation of Religion in our preſent or former Parliaments) but onelyonly Enacts, That the High Commiſſioners ſhall adjudge nothing to be Hereſie, not formerly reſolved to be ſo (as this Act expreſſeth) but what the Parliament ſhall adjudge …rder and determine to be Hereſie by aſſent of the Clergie in their Convocation; from whence no argument can be deduced, but this Nonſequitur; The High Commiſſioners can judge no new opinion to be, nor puniſh it as Hereſie, unleſſe the Parliament of England firſt adjudge it to be Hereſie with the aſſent of the Clergy in Convocation, by the expreſſe proviſion of this Act: Ergo, the Parliament can make no Eccleſiaſticall Lawes, meddle with no Church affaires, nor determine ought to be Hereſie unleſſe the Clergy in Convocation firſt aſſent thereto. Pretty incoherent Logick, and Anti-parliamentary Divinity.

Fourthly, that Doctor Potter himſelfe voluntarily corrected them upon his Letter, appeares not; but if he did, it was to pleaſe this Archbiſhop, in deleting thoſe paſſages which he ſignified to be diſpleaſing to him, the better to obtaine the Prebendary he ſued for to him in this Letter: Wherefore theſe purgations muſt reſt ſtill upon his ſcore.

To the Popiſh Alterations and Delections, under his owne hand made in the SCOTTISH COMMON-PRAYER BOOKE, which the Commons deſired to preſſe, he pleaded the ACT OF PACIFICATION AND OBLIVION, againſt the very reading of them: Whereupon they did forbeare, and wave the reading of them for the preſent, though cleane out of the ACT, alleaging onelyonly, that this Plea of his was a plaine confeſſion of his Guilt.

The fifth ſort of purgations ggPage 252, 253, 254.objected to me are thoſe in SIR ANTHONY HUNGERFORDS Books, which DOCTOR BAAR my Chaplaine would Obje. 5.have expunged: Of which SIR EDWARD HUNGERFORD his Sonne complained to me, as he depoſeth, after he had expoſtulated with my Chaplaine, who would croſſe them out, or not licenſe the Bookes: Whereupon I told him, I having many other imployments had trusted my CHAPLAINES with thoſe things, which I wholly referred to them, therefore what they thought fit to leave out, you muſt Submit to: And thereupon would not redreſſe his Grievance herein.

To this I Anſwer, Firſt, that if there were any Errour herein, it was p. 525not mine but my Chaplaines, ſince dead, who if he were alive, and might have been heard to ſpeake for himſelfe, would doubtleſſe have given a good account and reaſon to your Lordſhips, why he thought theſe paſſages unfit to be printed. Saint Augustine ſaith, that oft times infinite harme did accrew to the Church, per temerarios veritatis aſſertatores; and every Treatiſe written againſt Papiſts is not ſo ſatisfactory, but that it may prove ſo diſadvantagious to the Cauſe, as to be unfit to be printed: It may be theſe were ſuch; however, God be thanked, the Books were printed with thoſe paſſages in them, and ſo no harme done by my Chaplaine. Secondly, for my anſwer to Sir Edward; it was true, I had ſo many publick buſineſſes then upon me, that I had no leiſure to peruſe Books for the Preſſe, and thereupon referred that truſt wholly to my Chaplaines; therefore if they offended, they onelyonly muſt anſwer for it, not I: and ſhould I herein controll what my Chaplaines had done in this kind, it would have ſo diſcouraged them, that none of them have undertaken the office of a Licenſer afterwards: Beſides, I ſhould have been perpetually troubled with clamours againſt that which my Chaplaines thought fit to be blotted out of Books tendred to them to be licenſed, for them every man would have appealed from them to me in this kind, ſo as I ſhould have had no quiet.

To this was replied, Firſt, that we have formerly proved at large, that his Chaplaines errours and delinquencies in this kind are his owne, becauſe the care Reply.of licenſing Books was originally veſted in himſelfe, and they were but his entruſted ſervants, for whom he muſt be reſponſible at his perill; and the rather in this caſe, becauſe he confeſſeth his Chaplaine is dead and cannot be puniſhed for it, who if alive, could give no reaſon for not licenſing thoſe Books, unleſſe theſe paſſages againſt popery were expunged; but onelyonly this, that it was by his Lords owne ſpeciall directions, who would ſuffer no harſh paſſages againſt popery or Papiſts to paſſe our Preſſes unexpunged; as appeares by thoſe himſelfe purged out of Doctor Sibthorps Sermon, the Prayer for the Faſt, Doctor Potters Treatiſe; and that himſelfe was every way as Popiſh, as good a friend to Popery as his Grace. Secondly, for Saint Augustines ſaying, we approve it, confeſſing, that every Pamphlet weakly written againſt Popery is not fit to paſſe the Preſſe: But this concernes not thoſe two Treatiſes, written by a converted Papiſt of eminent rank, with excellent ſolidity, judgement, learning, which muſt not be licenſed; not upon any pretext of weakneſſe or want of ſolidity in them (never ſo much as once objected;) but onelyonly becauſe Sir Edward Hungerford would not condiſcend that the forecited clauſes againſt the Pope and Popery (ſome of them taken out of Popiſh Authors themſelves) ſhould be expunged out of his Fathers Works, to martilate them. That theſe Books were ſince printed without thoſe purgations, is no thanks to the Archbiſhop nor his Chaplaine, who would not licenſe them vnleſſe firſt purged, and the licenſing of them without ſuch purgations by others, proves ſtrongly, that there was no juſt grounds of purging them, but onelyonly … gratifie the Pope and popery. Fourthly, we beleeve his anſwer true, that he intruded himſelfe out of a polypragmaticall humour into ſo many ſecular imployments, as he had little time to peruſe Books or preach the Goſpell; but this is only his crime, not his excuſe: However, ſince he could find ſo much leiſure upon all occaſions to perſecute godly Miniſters, ſuppreſſe Orthodox Books, Lectures, Prayers, advance Arminianiſme, Popery, and popiſh deſignes, he might by like reaſon have found out time enough to have peruſed theſe ſmall Treatiſes or at leaſt the clauſes excepted againſt by his Chaplaine upon Sir Edward Hungerford's complaint, being a Gentleman of quality and fortune. Fiftly, the latter part of his anſwer proves, that it was altogether bootleſſe for any man to complaine to him of his Chaplaines abuſes in purging out paſſages againſt Popery, and that he was reſolved to heare no complaints of this kind, much leſſe not to redreſſe them: His reaſons rendred for it are moſt abſurd. The firſt is, becauſe this would diſcourage his Chaplaines from being Licenſers: It ſeemes by this p. 526they were ſo really, ſo realouſly popiſh, that they muſt not be checked or controlled in the leaſt kind for purging out ought againſt Popes, Popery, Papiſts, for feare of diſcouragement, no, not by himſelfe; or ſo waſpiſh and ſelf-willed (like himſelfe) that they would fling up their very Office of licenſing, if they might not have their wils, to obliterate what they pleaſed, without any ſuperiour controll: But this is but a pretence, for Doctor Bray himſelfe rendred this as the true reaſon of hie refuſall to licenſe theſe clauſes to Sir Edward; That they would offend thoſe of the Roman Religion, againſt whom no harſh phraſes muſt be uſed, we being now in a faire way to win them (viz. by reconciling our ſelves to them, not them to us) therefore they muſt be either expladed, or the Book left unprinted. The ſecond reaſon is yet more abſurd, taken from his owne caſe and quiet, that he ſhould have been perpetually troubled with imployments and clamours of this nature, &c. It ſeems it was his Chaplaines conſtant practice by his owne direction, to purge out all ſharpe paſſages againſt the Pope, popery, and popiſh Innovations out of new licenſed Books, os elſe the reaſon would not hold; for did they it but rarely, not uſually, he ſhould not have been perpetually diſturbed with ſuch complaints as this of Sir Edwards: But be it ſo or not, yet certainly it was no more then his place and duty required, to heare and redreſſe all juſt complaints of this kind againſt his Chaplains when they did amiſſe, elſe Authors, Stationers, Printers, might be moſt injuriouſly handled by them, without knowing where to complaine or ſeek reliefe; for to whom elſe ſhould they complaine, but unto him, whoſe Chaplaines they were, whoſe place, truſt, they herein executed by his own appointment? Or who elſe ſhould or durſt right them herein if injured, but himſelfe? and if it were no trouble for him to ſpend whole dayes, weeks, yeers, in advancing unlawfull oppreſſive Loane, Monopolies, Projects, Impoſitions, Texes, to oppreſſe the Subjects, contrary to, and inconſiſtent with his Archiepiſcopall function; with what face could he deem it any trouble or vexation to ſpare one hour or two each monethmonth or yeer in hearing, examining ſuch juſt complaints againſt his Chaplaines, when they ſo groſly offended? This anſwer therefore plainly remonſtrates, that he was inflexibly reſolved his Chaplaines ſhould purge out all notable paſſages againſt the Pope, Popery, and popiſh errours, no doubt by his owne ſpeciall direction given to them: Therefore let who would complaine thereof, he muſt goe without redreſſe, and ſubmit to his Chaplaines pleaſure, elſe his whole Volume muſt goe unlicenſed, be it never ſo uſefull, ſo neceſſary for our Religions juſt defence; which manifeſts the tranſcendent height of his and his Chaplaines reſolutions, their arbitrary, uncontrolable proceedings to ſet up popery without oppoſition, by theſe Purgations.

The fixt purged Book is Doctor Featlies Sermons, ordered by my command (after they were printed by an ancient Licenſe) to be carried to my Chaplain Doctor Obje. 6. Here p. 108. 254. 269. 270Bray, who gelded out of them divers of the ſmarteſt and moſt maſculine paſſages againſt Popery, Arminianiſme, toleration of Papiſts, Prieſts, Jeſuits, and a paſſage againſt Adoration of Images by Papists, taken out of the very Homily againſt the perill of Idolatry; whereof he complained to Sir Edmond Soot, deſiring him to acquaint me with it; who told him, he conceived it would be in vaine, becauſe he thought my Chaplaine had directions from me for what he did, and that I would not alter any thing in this kind done by my Chaplaines.

To this I anſwer: Firſt, that though it be the place and office of the Archbiſhop of Canterbury to have a care what Books are Licenſed, yet Doctor Featly himſelfe Anſwer.(who hath been a Chaplaine and Licenſer of Books under my Predeceſſor) can atteſt, that the Archbiſhop himſelfe did ſeldome or never uſe to peruſe or licenſe Books in perſon, but onelyonly by his Chaplaines. Secondly, theſe purgations were made by my Chaplaine, who is dead and cannot anſwer for himſelfe; not by me: and Doctor Featly never complained to me of them; neither did Sir Edmond Scot ever acquaint me with any complaint the Doctor made to him about p. 527it. Thirdly, though ſome few ſmart Paſſages of this kinde are expunged, mitigated, and left out; yet there are in his Sermons, yea in thoſe very Pages complained of, many ſharpe paſſages againſt Popery left in (two or three whereof he read) as one againſt Prayer to Saints, p. 787. where he compares the Papiſts with the Baalists, p. 808. where he avers, that the Pope is Antichriſt; and p. 810. where he cals the Pope, the whore of Babylon. Therefore theſe could not be thought to be croſſed out in favour of Papiſts and Popery, but becauſe the expreſſions in them were ſuch as might give juſt occaſion of diſtaſte. Fourthly, I ſhall by your Lordſhips favour demand of Doctor Featly himſelfe two queſtions, and deſire his anſwer to them. Firſt, Whether when he was a Licenſer in my Predeceſſors time, it was not uſuall for his Chaplaines to qualifie or raſe out ſome unfitting expreſſions when they ſaw cauſe, out of Books tendered to them to licenſe? and whether they were not liable to cenſure, if any ſuch eſcaped them, upon complaint? Secondly, Whether himſelfe, ſince the ſitting of this Parliament, hath not written a Book, afterwards licenſed? and whether the Licenſer did not alter and blot ſomething out of it? what was it, and who did it?

To which ſodaine queſtions the Doctor being commanded by the Lords to give an anſwer; replyed to the firſt Queſtion; That he and his fellow-Licenſers did ſometimes uſe to qualifie or obliterate ſome paſſages ſavouring of Puritaniſme, or in favour of it, (eſpecially after the burning of Doctor Mockets Booke, for which the Licenſer was reprehended) and that himſelfe was once queſtioned before King James for a Booke licenſed, about a paſſage concerning the calling of the Jewes, and for Maſter Eltons Booke upon the Commandements, ſavouring of Puritaniſme; but he never knew in his time of any Paſſages againſt the Papiſts, Popery, Arminianiſme, or the like, expunged out by Archbiſhop Abbot, or his Chaplaines; nor any one queſtioned for licenſing any ſuch, but rather encouraged, till of late times. To the ſecond, he confeſſed that he and Maſter Rouſe did joyntly write and publiſh a Booke fince this Parliament, intituled Ʋertumnus Romanus, and that Maſter Rouſe cauſed him to ſtrike out a Paſſage in it that was ſomwhat ſharpe againſt the Separatists, which he did at his deſire. Whereupon the Archbiſhop urged, that then he hoped his Chaplaines might have the ſame liberty to croſſe what they thought fitting out of the Books they licenſed, though it were againſt Popery.

To this was anſwered: Firſt, that by Queene Elizabeths Injunctions, Numb. 51. The Archbiſhops of Canterbury, York & Biſhop of London themſelves (not their Chaplains) Reply.are appointed to Licenſe Books, and trusted with this charge: which they perſonally performed, as appeares by ſundry Entries of Books licenſed by them in the Stationers Register of Entries: And why their Succeſſours in theſe dayes ſhould not perſonally licenſe Books and diſcharge this truſt, as well as their Predeceſſours, making … of their Chaplains onelyonly for their aſſiſtance, to report the ſubſtance of the … unprinted to them, no reaſon can be given, but either their careleſneſſe, …, or overmuch intermedling with ſecular affaires, no wayes concerning or beſeeming them. Secondly, that his Chaplaine made theſe Purgations, not himſelfe, is no excuſe, ſince he did it by his ſpeciall command and direction, as Sir Edmond Scots words, and Doctor Featlies teſtimony evidence. Thirdly, his Chaplains death is no excuſe of his own guilt. That Doctor Featly complained not to him of theſe Purgations, is no excuſe; for if he had, Sir Edward Hungerfords example, his owne anſwer to him then, his preſent expreſſions at the Barre now, and Sir Edmond Scots words to Doctor Featly clearly prove, it had been bootleſſe and he remedileſſe; Legem ſibi dixerat ipſe, he was reſolved to admit and redreſſe no complaints of this nature againſt his Chaplaines. Fourthly, the permitting of ſome Paſſages againſt Popery to ſtand in the Doctors Sermon, is an aggravation of his Chaplaines crime in purging out others of the ſame nature; for why ſhould not all ſtand as well as ſome, eſpecially that againſt Popiſh worſhiping of Images taken verbatim out of our Homilies there quoted, and the very words p. 528of the Scriptuze it ſelfe againſt conniving at Popiſh Seducers to Idolatry? Indeed thoſe that remained are more generall; theſe obliterated more particular, ſharpe, piercing, and more concerned our preſent times, practiſes; therefore leſſe reaſon to be expunged. Fiftly, theſe expunctions out of the Doctors Sermons were ſo many that the Printer was enforced to new print ſome 16. or 18. ſheets in folio, to his great prejudice. That thoſe Paſſages he cites eſcaped their purgation, was becauſe the Booke being large, they paſſed undiſcerned till after its publication, elſe doubtleſſe the Archbiſhop and his Chaplaines would have croſſed them out in Doctor Featlies Sermons, as well as in Doctor Sibthorps, or in Doctor Potters, Biſhop Hals owne Booke, Doctor Jones and Doctor Clerke; and not have permitted his Brother Pontiffe of Rome, to be ſtiled Antichriſt, and the whoore of Rome, and his Prieſts compared unto Baalists. Sixtly, Doctor Featlies teſtimony is a very ſtrong evidence againſt the Archbiſhop; for before his time, there were never any ſuch Purgations made, but onelyonly of Paſſages in favour of Puritaniſme, nor any Books queſtioned, or Paſſages deleted that were againſt the Pope, Popery, Arminianiſme, Jeſuits, Seminary Prieſts, or Papiſts, which the Archbiſhop and his Chaplaines firſt introduced. As for his Vertumnus Romanus, being joyntly written by Maſter Rowſe and himſelfe; it was juſt that Maſter Rowſe ſhould have liberty to croſſe out by the Doctors conſent any paſſage he diſliked, and the Doctor conſented to have this deleted; this Paſſage therefore not being obliterated by any Licenſer, but by the Authors themſelves by joynt conſent, and being not againſt Popery or Papiſts, but Separatiſts onelyonly (who profeſſe the ſame Doctrine with us, and were then ready to joyne with us in one way of Worſhip, of Government) is no extenuation or juſtification of his and his Chaplaines purging this Doctors Booke ſo groſely as they did of Paſſages againſt the Pope, Popery and Arminianiſme.

The next Purgations iiHere p. 254. 255.objected, were made in Doctor Clerks, Doctor Jones, and Maſter Obje. 7.Wards Books, by Doctor Heywood, Doctor Baker, Doctor Weeks.

To this I anſwer: Firſt, that there are divers ſharpe Paſſages yet remaining in Doctor Clerkes Sermons againſt Papiſts: that they were licenſed part of them by Anſwer.Doctor Weekes (none of mine but the Biſhop of Londons houſhold Chaplain) and part of them by Doctor Heywood my Chaplain: That Maſter White diſtinguiſhed not what Sermons were Licenſed by the one, what by the other. Beſides, Maſter White is but a ſingle witneſſe. Secondly, Doctor Jones his Commentary on the Hebrewes was licenſed and purged by Doctor Baker, the Biſhop of Londons Chaplaine, and Maſter Wards Booke by Doctor Weeks, not by me or my Chaplaines; therefore they concerne me not.

To this was replyed: Firſt, that the moſt pungent and pregnant Paſſages in Doctor Clerkes Sermons againſt the Popes Authority, tyranny, pride, Jeſuits, Reply.Prieſts, Papiſts, Arminians, Arminianiſme, Popery and Popiſh errours, are … tally wiped out by the Licenſers, and very few ſuch eſcaped their ſpunge … leaving therefore of a few inconfiderable Paſſages againſt them unexpung… … no more excuſe the obliterating of the reſt; then a thiefes leaving of a true mans cloathes on his backe, or ſparing his life, will juſtifie or extenuate the taking away of his purſe, or the leaving a few Cottages ſtanding excuſe the burning of a whole City beſides. That Doctor Weekes and Doctor Heywood joyned in expunging theſe Sermons, proves their confederacy onelyonly, not leſſens but aggravates their iniquity. As for Doctor Weekes he was his owne Chaplaine as well as the Biſhop of Londons, as appeares by his owne hand and Diary; therefore he muſt anſwer for his miſdemeanours in this kinde, for purging both Doctor Clorkes Sermons and Maſter Wards Commentary: For Doctor Baker, he was his owne great favourite, advanced by him to a Prebendary, as appeares by the Docquet Booke; Therefore his Index Expurgatorius on Doctor Jones his Commentary (proceeding doubtleſſe from this Archbiſhops antecedent directions) muſt remaine upon his ſcore, notwithſtanding all his ſhifting evaſions. To the particular paſſages purgged p. 529out of theſe Authors, he returned no anſwer at all; onelyonly by theſe his ſeverall anſwers to theſe Purgations, all the world may clearly diſcover his ſhameleſſe impudence and Popery in juſtifying them, his brain-ſick folly in his extenuations of them, his palpable Romanizing in practiſing many of them himſelfe, and the whole weight of all the Branches in this charge falling heavily upon him, notwithſtanding all his ſhifts to ward them off.

The twelfth charge kkPage 349.objected againſt me is, my connivance at the importation of popiſh Books, and reſtoring them to the owners, when ſeized by the Cuſtomers Object. 12.and Searchers, contrary to the Statute of 3. Jacobi e. 5.

To this I anſwer, I never connived at their importation, and that the reſtoring of them when ſeized, was not by any direction of mine, but by order of the High Anſwer.Commiſſion Court.

To which was replied, Firſt, that he doth not ſo much as once alleage, he ever gave any order for ſeizing any Popiſh Books imported, whereas the Cuſtomers, Reply.Searchers, Purſivants, and other Officers had ſtrict Warrants and ſpeciall Commands from him to ſeize all imported Bibles with Notes, with all Books ſavouring any way of Puritaniſme, as he deemed it, or tending againſt Arminianiſme and popiſh Innovations. Secondly, he confeſſeth, that popiſh Books when ſeized, were uſually reſtored by order of the High Commiſſion Court to the owners, contrary to the Statute, whereas that Court never reſtored any Bibles with Notes, or Books againſt Arminianiſme or popiſh Innovations ſeized by their order, but burnt them privately, or otherwiſe deſtroyed them. Thirdly, he proves not that any of them were reſtored by Order of Court, whereas Egerton ſweares, that Motterſhead averred, they were reſtored by the Archbiſhops owne order, without the Courts: But be it by order of Court, yet his crime is ſtill the ſame, ſince himſelf ſate Preſident and chiefe Controller in the High Commiſſion, and conſented to theſe Orders, if not commanded them to be made; whereas in duty he ſhould have croſſed them; that Court not daring to make any ſuch Orders of Reſtitution without his conſent, who had ſuch an over-ruling power in it.

The thirteenth particular llHere page 349 to 354.objected againſt me is, my advancing of Arminians and Clergy-men ſuperstitiouſly and popiſhly affected, to Biſhopricks, Deaneries, Headſhips Object. 13.of Houſes, Prebendaries, and all other Eccleſiaſticall preferments, yea Chaplainſhips, not onelyonly about my ſelfe, but about his Majeſty, and the Prince: with my encroachments herein upon the Lord Keeper, the Lord High Chamberlaine, Maſter of the Court of Wards and Liveries; and my diſgracing, perſecuting godly Orthodox Miniſters, and keeping them from preferment, for oppoſing Arminianiſme, popery and popiſh Innovations; of both which they have given ſundry particular inſtances, to the chiefe whereof I ſhall returne ſuch anſwers as I am …ble in due place.

… this I ſhall anſwer ſomething in generall, Firſt, that to my remembrance Anſwer.… preferred no ſuch perſons to Biſhopricks, or any Eccleſiaſticall livings and preferments; ſecōdly, if any of thoſe preferred by me were ſuch at the time of their preferments, it was unknown to me; and if they turned ſuch afterwards, I could neither foreſee nor prevent it: Thirdly, on the contrary, I have preferred divers worthy orthodox Miniſters, free from all exceptions; as Maſter Taylor of Clapham, now one of the Aſſembly, Maſter John Downham, Biſhop Hall, and ſundry others.

To which was replied, Firſt, that we had proved the generallity of thoſe he preferred, to be addicted, inclined to Arminianiſme, Popery, or both, and ſo Reply.knowne to be when he advanced them, no doubt to himſelfe better then others, and this their inclination was one chiefe cauſe of their preferment. Secondly, that his preferment of Maſter John Downham and Maſter Taylor, orthodox men, to petty Benefices, and no higher preferments, was but a meer ſtale to blind ſome peoples eyes, or ſtop their mouths, for his advancing of ſo many rotten, corrupt, p. 530popiſh Clergy-men to Biſhopricks, Deanaries, Prebendaries, Arch-deaconries, Maſterſhips of Colledges, and the fatteſt Benefices; but no juſtification nor extenuation of his preferring of ſo many ſuch. Thirdly, for his advancement of Biſhop Hall (viz. from one Biſhoprick to another) it is yet a meer non liquet to us, onelyonly averred not proved by himſelfe; but if true, it was rather to corrupt and draw him over to his party, then preferre him for his owne or the Churches benefit; and how that worthy Prelate hath degenerated, declined ſince, in caſe of Epiſcopacy, the Scottiſh Warres, the new Canons, the Et cetera Oath, popiſh Ceremonies, Innovations of all ſorts, and preſſing the book of Sports upon the Lords day, we have already manifeſted by his owne Letters in part, and the reſidue is ſo experimentally knowne to moſt of his Dioceſſe, that it needs no proofe. However, his preferring of above twelve Judas-Biſhops to one true Apostle, is a grand diſſervice to our Church, our Religion, and no juſtification nor extenuation of his offence therein.

For particulars, the mmHere page 250 to 256.firſt thing I am charged with, is for advancing Maſter Mountague, Doctor Manwaring, Biſhop Neale, Biſhop Wren, Doctor Lindſey, and Obje. 1.others, to Biſhopricks, men publikly complained againſt, one of them cenſured in Parliament, and diſabled from all preferments in our Church, which was proved by the Docquet Books.

To this I anſwer, Firſt, that Maſter Mountague was not preferred by me to any Biſhoprick, neither is the Docquet Book any good proofe thereof, but he was Anſw.preferred to it by Sir Dudly Carltons meanes; true it is, I was at his conſecration, but that was by command, and I could not refuſe or reſiſt it: Beſides, he was a great Scholler, therefore thought worthy of preferment by the King. Secondly, for Doctor Manwaring, I did not preferre him, but it was his Majeſties pleaſure to beſtow a Deanary, and after that a Biſhoprick on him in regard of his ſufferings for his ſervice, notwithſtanding his ſentence, and he commanded me to conſecrate him, which command I had no power to withſtand or oppoſe, being bound by Law and the duty of my Place to obey it. Thirdly, for Biſhop Neale he was a worthy man, free from Popery and Arminianiſme, who in King James his Reigne, before his preferment to Winchester and York had been preferred to ſundry Dignities, Biſhopricks, and was in office and good eſteem at Court, both with King James and King Charles. Fourthly, For Biſhop Wren, when I firſt preferred him, he was a worthy man, who waited upon his Majeſty when he was in Spaine, and did good ſervice there; if he hath miſdemeaned himſelfe ſince, it is his owne fault, not mine, he is ſtill alive, and muſt anſwer for himſelfe, to the charge and impeachment exhibited againſt him. Fiftly, Doctor Lindſey was a very great Scholler, who deſerved well, neither did I know him to be an Arminian; 'tis true, he was preferred to two Biſhopricks ſucceſſively, but it was by Biſhop Neale, whoſe Chaplaine he was, not by me; there is no Oath nor clea… evidence it was by my meanes, the Docquet book being no ſufficient … for it mentioned onelyonly the Kings pleaſure and order for it, ſignified by … Signet to me, as a ſervant, but not that I was the author of his preferments; the King may ſignifie his pleaſure to the Signet Office by whom he pleaſeth; as for Maſter Smarts teſtimony of him, there were ſome quarrels and differences at Durham, between Maſter Smart and him, which may cauſe him to ſpeak the worſe of him: Maſter Walker ſaith onelyonly, he was reputed a great Arminian, which is no Hereſie. Sixtly, however theſe were affected, yet none can charge me with any Popery or Arminianiſme.

To this was replied, Firſt, that we have as cleerly proved as the Sunne at noon day, that Mountague was protected, advanced by him, and that in contempt of Reply.the Parliament, by his owne Diary, the Docquet Book, Biſhop Mountagues owne Letter of thanks to him for his favour and preferments, which he hath no way anſwered; as for his preferment, that it was by Sir Dudly Carltons meanes, it is but a bare ſurmiſe of his owne, without proofe or colour; and for his preſence p. 531at his conſecration, it was meerly voluntary to countenance him, not by command for ought appeares. Secondly, it appeares moſt cleerly by the Evidence given, that Doctor Manwaring was advanced both to his Deanary and Biſhoprick by his means & recommendations alone, for the diſſervice he had done the Kingdome by thoſe Sermons for which he was juſtly ſentenced in Parliament, and the ill offices he had ſince done our Church, by introducing Stone-Altars, Copes, with other Popiſh Reliques, Ceremonies thereinto; that he was thus advanced and conſecrated a Biſhop by him in direct affront of the Parliaments cenſure, diſabling him from all future preferments, we have fully proved: And whereas he layes the Odium of his preferments onelyonly upon the King to excuſe himſelfe, it is but his owne bare allegation, without any ſhadow of proofe, and that in his owne caſe, for his owne defence, therefore not to be credited: But admit it true, yet ſince himſelfe was preſent at his cenſure in the Lords Houſe, upon the Commons impeachment of him, recorded it in his Diary, and was accuſed for having a finger in his Sermons, and licenſing them for the Preſſe, it was his duty to have acquainted his Majeſty with, and minded him of this his cenſure, diſabling him for ever from all ſuch preferments in our Church, to have oppoſed his preferment, and withſtood his conſecration and Mountagues too; the rather, becauſe every man before any Biſhops conſecration, hath free liberty to put in any juſt exceptions againſt him, there being a publike Inſtrument ſolemnly poſted up in the Arches at Bow, before every Biſhops conſecration (as a neceſſary formality) giving publike notice, That ſuch a one is to be conſecrated the Biſhop of ſuch a Dioceſſe ſuch a day, and ſignifying, that if any perſon can take any juſt exceptions againſt him, and ſhew good cauſe why he ſhould not be conſecrated, he ſhall be heard. In regard whereof, this Archbiſhop ex Officio, might, yea ought to have ſhewed the Lords publike cenſure of Manwaring, as a juſt legall Plea, why he ſhould not be conſecrated a Biſhop (as Maſter Jones the Printer did in a legall way object Biſhop Mountagues Popiſh and Arminian Books, with the proceedings pending againſt him in Parliament for the ſame, is a juſt cauſe why he ſhould not be made a Biſhop, yet he could not be heard nor prevaile therein:) therefore the neglect of this his truſt, duty, contrary to Law, and his recommending, conſecrating him to be a Biſhop, in affront of the Parliaments Judgement which diſabled him, muſt needs be a tranſcendent crime, no wayes mittigated, but aggravated, by his falſe diſloyall excuſes. Thirdly, for Biſhop Neale, he was ever reputed a Popiſh and Arminian Prelate, a perſecutor of all orthodox, godly Miniſters, a preferrer of popiſh Arminian Clergymen, making choyce of ſuch for his Chaplaines, for ſuch a one was he accuſed to his Majeſty by the Houſe of Commons in their Remonſtrance Anno 1628. and complained of in ſundry Parliaments before his advancement to Winchester or Yorke: For his pretended worth, all the Court knew very well he had little worth or learning in him, being unable to preach, write, diſpute, not preaching once in a dozen yeers or more: For his preferments and Court-offices, they were gained, maintained by flattery, ſymony, and his baſe temporizing ſervility, he ſerving as a ready Inſtrument upon all occaſions to introduce anypopiſh Innovaſions in the Church, and ſet on foot any oppreſſing projects in the State: Therfore his preferment of ſuch an ill Inſtrument (who firſt advanced and brought this Arch-Prelat into favour at Court) is no wayes excuſable. Fourthly, Doctor Wren was before his advancement to a Biſhoprick, a profeſſed Arminian, a ſuperſtitious, popiſh, diſſolute, impious, corrupt Clergy-man, and ſo reputed by all; therefore a fit Chaplaine to promote the Spaniſh Match and Deſigne, to ſeduce his Majeſty, when in Spaine, from our Religion; and his tyrannicall, ſuperſtitious, popiſh proceedings ſince he was made Biſhop, have more fully diſcovered what he was before: All or moſt of which being in purſuance of the Archbiſhops Inſtructions, Injunctions to him (as his Annuall Account of his proceedings to him evidence) himſelfe who promoted him and them, muſt be more guilty of, and reſponſible for them, then Wren himſelfe, who yet may ſuffer for them in due p. 532time. Fiftly, Doctor Linſeys ſchollerſhip is not in queſtion, but his Arminian, popiſh inclination and opinions, which were ſo much the more dangerous, by reaſon of his great reputed learning and ſchollerſhip; the greateſt Schollers, if unſound, being the moſt pernicious ſeducers, and unfitteſt to be preferred of all others: That he was promoted by Biſhop Neales meanes, is a bare allegation of his owne without proofe; that himſelfe preferred him is cleere by the Docquet Booke; how much he was tainted with Popery and Arminianiſme, Maſter Smart and Maſter Walker have depoſed upon Oath, and his preſumption in bringing Sancta Clara to him, even when he was about to publiſh his Book, to acquaint him with his perſon and deſigne of reconciling us thereby to the Church of Rome, (which himſelfe records under his owne hand) is a ſufficient confirmation of their teſtimony and his intimacy with him, after which he yet preferred him; For Maſter Smarts quarrell with him at Durham, it was onelyonly for his Arminianiſme, popiſh Tenets, and Innovations there broached, introduced, and ſo his teſtimony the more credible, he then complaining againſt him in Parliament for it; for the Docquet Booke, it is not ſimply, that the King ſignified his pleaſure by this Archbiſhops for Doctor Linſeys, and thoſe others preferments, but that it was by Order from the Archbiſhop of Canterbury, therefore no doubt by his procurement, conſent and approbation, who had engroſſed the ſole diſpoſall of all preferments Eccleſiaſticall. Sixtly, to that he objects, that however theſe were affected, yet none can object any Arminianiſme or Popery to him: We reply, that his conſtant advancing and favouring of ſuch perſons, is a very ſtrong evidence of his inclination to both; and our evidence already produced to prove it, is ſo full, that it unavoidably manifeſts him guilty in the higheſt Degree of both. Finally, he gives no anſwer to the other popiſh and Arminian Biſhops preferments by himſelfe, and ſo confeſſeth it.

The ſecond thing I am nnHere p. 350.charged with, is the preferring of Doctor Potter and Obje. 2.Doctor Jackson, both Arminians, and Popiſh Doctor Coſins to Deanaries.

I anſwer, Firſt, that Doctor Potter was a learned man, an there was no proofe Anſwer.he is an Arminian, but by hear-ſay. Secondly, for Doctor Coſins, I named foure to the King for the Deanary of Peterborough, whereof he was one, and the King pitched upon him by reaſon of his poverty and loſſes by the Scots. Thirdly, for Doctor Jackson, he was a learned man and honeſt, for which cauſe I did prefer him.

To which was replied, Firſt, that we proved directly Doctor Potter was a profeſſed Arminian, by Doctor Featlies teſtimony, and ſo known, reputed to be by all Reply.in the Univerſity of Oxford, ſo as none can deny it; yea he preferred him as he was thus inclined, not as a learned man; his learning making him onelyonly capable of doing more miſchiefe in propagating his Arminian errours. Secondly, that he recommended Doctor Coſins to the King, and th Deanary, is cleer by the Docquet Book and his own confeſſion; that he put any other in competition with him▪ Is uncertaine: Aowever, he carried the Deanary by his recommendation; and for him to advance a perſon ſo popiſh, ſo ſuperſttitious, ſo infamous, ſo oft complained againſt in Parliament for popery, as this Doctor was, who had done ſo much miſchiefe in our Church, upon any pretext, was, no doubt, a grand offence. Thirdly, Doctor Jacksons civill converſation and learning, made his errous and preferment more dangerous, more pernicious; his Arminian errours, not his Learning or Honeſty being the ground of his advancement to this dignity, and of thoſe other Deanes preferments, to which he hath given no anſwer.

The third thing ooHere p. 336. 337. Anſw.objected againſt me, is my encroachment upon the Lord Chamberlaines Office, and preferring Popiſh and Arminian Chaplains in ordinary Object. 3.to the King and Prince.

For this, I deny I did ever encroach upon the Lord Chamberlaines Office, or that I preferred any ſuch Chaplaines in ordinary to the King or Prince, neither is p. 533there any proofe that they were preferred by me; as for Doctor Heylin he was preferred by the Earle of Danby, Doctor Coſins by the Archbiſhop of Yorke, Doctor Baker by the Biſhop of London, Doctor Pocklington and the reſt, by I know not whom; as for Doctor Weekes he was none of my Chaplaine, but the Biſhop of Londons, and by him preferred.

To which was replied, Firſt, that Maſter Oldſworth expreſly depoſed, and the Earle of Pembroke himſelfe averred the contrary, that he encroached on the Lord Reply.Chamberlaines Office, and preferred theſe Chaplaines to the King. Secondly, that many of them were his owne Chaplaines, therefore doubtleſſe ſpecially recommended to the King by himſelfe, and no other. Thirdly, the King entruſting him with all Eccleſiaſticall affaires and preferments, no man elſe but himſelfe could preferre any to be Chaplaines to the King, but by his approbation or aſſiſtance firſt obtained; yea, no other perſon durſt encroach upon the Lord Chamberlaines Office in this kind but he. Fourthly, we ſhall prove Doctor Weekes to be his owne Chaplaine, by a Catalogue of his Chaplaines, written with his owne hand, affixed to the end of his Diary, which was produced and read; in which Catalogue Doctor Weekes his name was found Regiſtred among others of his Chaplaines; therefore his impudency and falſhood in denying it, was moſt intolerable: Hereupon the Archbiſhop being ſo confounded, that he could not deny it; confeſſed he was his Chaplain, but he had quite forgotten it, by reaſon he lived at London-houſe, and was that Biſhops houſhold Chaplaine, which the Commons Counſell ſaid, was a very poore excuſe for ſo palpable, ſo groſſe an untruth, averred with ſo much confidence.

The fourth thing ppHere p. 359.objected againſt me is, my preferring of Arminians, and perſons popiſhly affected, in the Univerſities; as Doctor Jackson and others in Obje. 4.Oxford, Doctor Martin in Cambridge, and Maſter Chapple in Ireland.

I anſwer; Firſt, that Doctor Jackson was a learned man, and honeſt, and for ought I know orthodox. Secondly, Doctor Martin was my houſhold Chaplain Anſwer,for a time, but not knowne to me to be an Arminian. Thirdly, Maſter Chapple had a great name in the Univerſity of Cambridge for a great Scoller, which made me preferre him; what he did maintaine in Ireland is but by hear-ſay, ſince I preferred him, and there was no complaint ever made to me againſt him, by Doctor Hoyle or any other.

To which was replied; Firſt, that he anſwered not to the maine charge, againſt him, in making ill Vice-Chancellours as well as Heads of houſes in Oxford: Reply.To that to which he offers an anſwer, we give this Reply; that Doctor Jackson was a profeſſed Arminian, though learned and honeſt, therefore no fit man to be Preſident of ſo famous a Colledge as Corpus Christi. Secondly, that Doctor Martin was a profeſſed Arminian, and declared himſelfe ſo by licenſing Arminian Books, and maintaining Arminian errous in his Sermon at Pauls-Croſſe when he was his owne houſhold Chaplaine; all which was knowne and complained of to himſelfe; therefore unfit to be made Maſter of a Colledge in Cambridge, or any other of his ſtraine, to which he gives no anſwer. Thirdly, that Maſter Chapple had a great name in the Univerſity of Cambridge and in London is true, but it was onelyonly for a moſt dangerous Arminian, who leavened the whole Colledge wherein he lived, and many of the Univerſity with his peſtilent errors; therefore a moſt unfitting man for him to make Provoſt and chiefe Governour of the Ʋniverſity and Colledge in Dublin, where Doctor Hoyle expreſly depoſeth, that he broached not onelyonly Arminian, but dangerous Popiſh Errours, of which it was in vaine to complaine to the Archbiſhop, who advanced and countenanced him herein.

The fift qqPa. 359, 360objection is, my encroachment upon the Lord Keepers and Maſter of the Wards Rights, of preſenting to the Kings livings, with my preferment of Object. 5.divers Arminians, and perſons popiſhly affected to Prebendaries and Benefices of beſt value; as Doctor Heylin, Doctor Weekes, Doctor Baker, Doctor Bray, Doctor Heywood, and others.

p. 534To this I anſwer; Firſt, that I encroached not upon either of their rights: True it is, there being a difference between the Lord Keeper Coventry and the Lord Anſwer.Cottington, Maſter of the Court of Wards, about the preſentation towards livings in the Kings gift; I took occaſion thereupon to informe his Majeſty, that till the controverſie were decided between them, he might doe well to diſpoſe of theſe livings himſelfe, for the encouragement and reward of ſuch young Schollers that went to Sea as Chaplaines in his Ships, who had nothing to live on after their returne from Sea, till they went forth againe; which motion the King approving of very well, committed the diſpoſing of theſe livings accordingly to my charge, without my deſire or ſuit. Secondly, I diſpoſed of livings to divers good and orthodox men, as to Doctor Jackson of Canterbury, and others, as well as to the perſons objected, who were not all preferred by me; for Doctor Heylin was promoted to his livings by the Earle of Danby, Doctor Baker and Doctor Weekes were preferred by the Biſhop of London.

To which was replyed; Firſt, that moſt of the living belonging to the Lord Keeper, and Master of the Wards, were beſtowed by him, of which both of them oft Reply.complained; therefore he encroached upon both, which none of his Predeceſſors did: For thoſe belonging to the Maſterſhip of the Wards, he confeſſeth he diſpoſed of them by the Kings appointment, but that it was upon the pretended occaſion, without his ſeeking or deſire (though occaſioned onelyonly his motion) we know not how to credit his bare word, without better evidence, who hath had the impudency to deny his owne hand-writing very often ſince his Tryal, and afterwards been enforced to confeſſe it. Secondly, his collation of Livings upon orthodox good men are ſo few, that he names but one [Doctor Jackson of Canterbury] and that when he had ſo farre prevailed upon his weakneſſe, by a new Cathedrall Statute and Oath, as to induce him to Bow to the Altar, &c. as frequently as other Prebends (which he hath depoſed) to his great ſhame, and re-greet ſince; this one Swallow therefore will prove no Spring, no proofe of his ordinary preferring orthodox godly men to livings, which he commonly beſtowed on the moſt rotten Arminians and popiſh Clergy-men he could cull out. Thirdly, the Docquet Booke is expreſſe, that Doctor Heylin was promoted to his livings and Prebendary by himſelfe, not by the Earle; that Doctor Baker and Weekes too were preferred by him, not by the Biſhop of London; and Weekes being his owne Chaplaine, and Baker made a Prebend of Canterbury (where no man durſt interpoſe but he) no doubt they were both preferred by him, as the DOCQUET witneſſeth on Record, againſt his impudent Deniall, without other proofe or truth.

The fixt Objection is, that I uſurped to me the conferring of moſt Biſhopricks and Eccleſiaſticall preferments in Ireland.Objection 6.

I anſwer; firſt, that I preferred none there, but at the requeſt of the Primate of Armagh, and others of that Kingdome, who firſt recommended them to me Anſw.by their Letters. Secondly, that I was a meanes, at their requeſt, to recover the Patrimony of the Churches in that Kingdome, which had been long defrauded of it; to reſtore Impropriations, and increaſe the Revenues of Biſhopricks and Church-livings there, for the encouragement of Learning, and better maintenance of Preaching; in which regard, they were deſirous I ſhould be acquainted with the perſons they thought meet to have recommended to them. This appears by the ſubſtance of moſt of the Letters that paſſed between the Lord Primate and other Biſhops of Ireland and me.

To which was replied: Firſt, that we inſtanced in his beſtowing Biſhopricks, Deaneries and other Church-preferments in Ireland, onelyonly to demonſtrate the Reply.Papall uſurpation, and Patriarchicall Juriſdiction he there encroached even whiles he was Biſhop of London; and to evidence his power in diſpoſing of all Eccleſiaſtical preferments then at home, ſince he diſpoſed of theſe in Ireland, where he had no Epiſcopall or Archiepiſcopall Juriſdiction. Secondly, that moſt of thoſe he there preferred, were never recommended from thence, though ſome of them perchance p. 535were. Thirdly, that although the recovery of the uſurped depopulated Patrimony of that Church in Ireland was a commendable worke, if done in a Legall way; yet to recover it, per fas & nefas, as he did it, by the meere arbitrary power of the Lord Deputy & Councell Table there, by oppreſſing, ruining, diſpoſſeſſing men of what they had lawfully purchaſed againſt their wils, without any conſideration or legall proceeding, was a moſt unjuſt and wicked act. Fourthly, juſtly to recover and get in Impropriations to maintaine Preaching, was a very good worke; had this beene his end; but certainly this was but a meere pretence; for would he, thinke you, ſet up ſincere Preaching in Ireland; who ſuppreſſed it all he could in England? Would he who ſubverted the Feoffees for purchaſing in Impropriations to the Church, to ſupport Preaching and Preaching Miniſters in England, recover and get in Impropriations to the Church in Ireland, to ſupport Preaching and Preaching Miniſters there? No verily: He did it onelyonly to maintain the Pompe, Power, Pride, State of the Prelates and Clergy there; as he did in England; not to maintain, or ſet up godly Preaching Miniſters, which he both here and there ſuppreſſed all he could.

The fourteenth thing objected againſt me is, my proſecution and ſevere proceedings Obje. 14.againſt godly Miniſters, for Preaching againſt Arminianiſme, Popery, and its dangerous increaſe among us; as namely againſt Maſter Samuel Ward, Maſter Chauncy and Maſter Bernard.

To this I anſwer; firſt, that theſe perſons Cenſures were the Act of the whole Anſwer.High-Commiſſion (which is but one body aggregate, for whoſe Act no one particular man is liable to be queſtioned, but the whole Court;) not mine alone (as an Act of Parliament is the Act of both Houſes, not of any particular Member) who gave my voyce alwayes laſt, or laſt but one; and ſo could not ſway the Court with my opinion, not knowne to the Court till I delivered it, after all had declared theirs. Secondly, that the Act of Parliament which lately aboliſhed the Star-chamber and High-Commiſſion hath no retroſpect to nullifie the Sentences given in them, but admits them good and valid in Law, not ſubjecting the Judges who gave them to any puniſhment. Thirdly, their Sentences appeared to me to be juſt, upon juſt grounds; and admit the Sentences or Proceedings unjuſt, yet it is but a miſdemenour in others of the Commiſſioners that gave them; therefore no Treaſon in me. Fourthly, the Paſſages and Sermons for which they were Sentenced were, partly Schiſmaticall againſt the laudable Ceremonies of the Church and the Kings Declaration; partly Seditious, to infuſe feares and jealouſies of the increaſe of Popery into the peoples mindes, and caſting aſperſions upon the Governours of the Church; For Maſter Bernards proſecution it was upon the Complaint of Doctor Cumber, Vice-Chancellour of Cambridge. Fiftly, for other Miniſters that were queſtioned, or fled from hence to New-England; they were Non-conformists, queſtioned upon juſt complaints; and moſt of them fled hence, out of a conſciouſneſſe of guilt or of a panick feare, before they were queſtioned or purſued.

To this was replyed; firſt, that we ttExod, 23. 2.muſt not follow a multitude to doe evill; and Reply.injuſtice done by a whole Court, is a greater crime in every particular perſon who votes or concurres in it, then if he had done an act of Injuſtice alone; becauſe more dangerous, more inexcuſable, a greater perverting of Juſtice; vvPſal. 94. 20. to 24.Ps 94:20–24framing of miſchiefe by a Law, and making the very throne of Justice, a throne of wickedneſſe: Yea, ſince the injuſtice of the whole Court flowes from the injuſtice of each particular Members vote, and is the Act of each particular man who concurres in, or conſents to it, he may no doubt be juſtly cenſured for it; and others concurrence with him will be no excuſe. If twenty men joyne in a Treaſon, Felony, or Treſpaſſe, xxSee Stanfords Pleas, l. 1. c. 44. 45.any one of them may by Law be ſeverally arraigned and condemned for it, as well as all of them together: We have a notable Preſident to prove this in the Judges cenſured and condemned in Parliament in King Richard the ſeconds time, for delivering their opinions contrary to Law againſt the Members of Parliament, and in the Judges p. 536queſtioned, impeached this preſent Parliament for their falſe Judgement given in the caſe of Ship-money; who might have pleaded as well as the Archbiſhop, each for himſelfe, the judgement we gave in theſe caſes was the Act and Judgement of the whole Bench; therefore we ought not to be ſeverally impeached for it; but none of them were ſo inconſiderate, as to make ſuch a childiſh plea, which himſelfe refuſed to admit in the High-Commiſſion in the caſe of the men of Glouceſter, cenſured for granting an Annuity to Maſter Workman their Minister, under the City Seale; an Act of the whole Corporation; yet they were there Sentenced for it in their naturall capacities, as ſingle men. And if this Plea ſhould be admitted, no corrupt Judges in any Court of Juſtice ſhould be ſeverally proceeded againſt for any illegall Judgement or proceedings of the Court, which would be the very bane of publicke Juſtice, and encourage ill Judges to doe what they liſt. Secondly, the objected Act of Parliament leaves the Judgments of both Courts as it found them, neither better nor worſe; and the Judges that gave them in the ſame condition as before, not in a better. If the Judgment be unjuſt, it leaves both them and the Judges, as far forth liable to examination, repeal, cenſure, as formerly; as appeares by divers of them now queſtioned in Parliament for unjuſt Sentences therein given. Thirdly, the Proceedings, Sentences againſt theſe perſons were certainly moſt unjuſt, being onelyonly for Preaching neceſſary Truths; and that which is but a Miſdemeanour in others, ſimply conſiderated as a ſingle offence; may prove high-treaſon in him, being conjoynedwith, and done in purſuit of his other Treaſonable practiſes to ſubvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, introduce popery & an arbitrary tyrannicall government, which we have fully manifeſted. Fourthly, the paſſages for which they were cenſured, were neither ſciſmatical nor ſeditious, nor ſcandalous, but neceſſary for thoſe ſecure times, to mind the people of the dangerous covert encreaſe of popery, Arminianiſme, and undermining of our Religion, which all now viſibly diſcerne, but few then obſerved; and to ruine godly Miniſters for diſcharging their conſciences, duties, in warning men of thoſe dangers and ſpeaking for the ſafety of that endangered Religion, which we all profeſſe, was a moſt unjuſt and monſtrous miſdemeanour, eſpecially in an Arch-prelat, who ſhould have encouraged, rewarded, advanced them for this their faithfulneſſe: as for the aſperſions pretended to be caſt upon the Governours of the Church therein, they were in truth meer generall cenſures, without particularizing of ſuch who juſtly deſerved them: And it is no calumny, but a neceſſary duty for Miniſters to tell negligent or unfaithfull Prelates of their duties, and reprehend them for their ſupineſſe when they are faulty, as well as other men. For Maſter Bernard and the reſt, they were proſecuted onelyonly by this Archbiſhops own inſtigation: for all the paſſages and proceedings againſt them were found in his ſtudy, endorſed with his own hand; he was the perſon to whom they made their humble addreſſes though without relief, and the only inexorable enemy they met with; their unjuſt cenſures therfore muſt reſt principally on him, who though he voted laſt in their condemnation, yet appeared firſt in their proſecution, and pre-directed their cenſures in private, before they were given in open Court. Fiftly, all the forementioned godly Miniſters were unjuſty moleſted by him, and few fled from hence, but ſuch who were actually proſecuted or threatned with ruine ere they left the Kingdom; moſt of them being then conformable to all Rites and Ceremonies by Law eſtabliſhed in our Church, though not to his popiſh Innovations, Ceremonies, and Book of Sports, againſt our Lawes and their conſciences too: This charge therefore ſtill reſts entirely upon him, notwithſtanding his evaſions.

The fifteenth charge objected againſt me is, my endeavours, practiſes, proceedings to ſuppreſſe preaching, Lecturers, Lectures on Lords-dayes and week-days; Object. 15.and that firſt, by a paper of Conſiderations which I tendred to the King. Secondly, by Inſtructions extracted out of them, and ſent as the Kings, in his name and authority to both the Archiſhops and all Biſhops of the Realm, to be put in ſtrict p. 537execution; by colour whereof many Lectures, Lecturers were ſuppreſſed in my owne Dioceſſe of London, and in other Dioceſſes, eſpecially by Biſhop Mountague, Biſhop Wren, and Biſhop Peice; as appeares by their Articles and proceedings. Thirdly: orders for Combination Lectures. Fourthly, the Kings Letters that none ſhould be ordained without a Title. Fiftly, the ſilencing of Maſter Leigh and others by my own direction and Letters ſigned by me. Sixtly, by ſuppreſſing the Feoffees for Impropriations, alledged to be my act and project.

To this I anſwer; firſt, that theſe Conſiderations were originally drawne by Biſhop Harſnet, not me, who onelyonly tranſcribed them out of his Copy. Secondly, that theſe Inſtructions of the King were before I was made Archbiſhop, and were ſent unto me by my Predeceſſour in the Kings name to be put in execution in my Dioceſſe; whereupon I was bound in duty to ſee them executed, being good and neceſſary; the intent of them being principally to bring all Lecturers to conformity, to ſuppreſſe ſingle Lecturers where there were Preaching Miniſters, to preſerve peace between the Miniſter and people, betwixt whom Lecturers in many places made great contentions, alienating the peoples affections from their Miniſters perſon, Miniſtry, and raiſing divers Schiſmes, to the diſturbance of the Churches peace. As for the Articles, Proceedings and Miſdemeanours of Biſhop Wren, Biſhop Mountague and Biſhop Peirce, they are nothing to me; they muſt anſwer for themſelves. Thirdly, the Orders for Combination Lectures were none of mine, and tended onelyonly to bring men to conformity. Fourthly, the Kings Letter, that none ſhould be made without a Title, was to prevent unworthy Ordinations, agreeable to ancient Canons, and no harme therein. Fiftly, for Maſter Leigh, I received many complaints againſt him, that he was a ſciſmaticall & ſeditious perſon, wherupon I writ thus to my Vicar generall; If you can faſten any thing on him, whereby he may be juſtly cenſured, then to proceed againſt him, and he finding juſt cauſe did ſuſpend him for his non-conformity; ſo as in this I did but diſcharge my duty, and deſerve no blame. Sixtly, as to the Feoffees for impropriations, there was great complaint made to me againſt them, that their end was to take away the right of patronages from the Church to make thoſe Miniſters they preferred independent on the Biſhops, & dependent wholly on them, and to engroſſe moſt Eccleſiaſticall preferments into their own hands, which I conceiving to be true in it ſelfe, and that it would prove miſchievous to the Church, did thereupon by the Kings command, cauſe an Information to be exhibited againſt them, in a legall way, in the Exchequer; where upon a full and faire hearing, they were ſuppreſſed, not by me, but by the Judges of that Court, who gave ſentence againſt them; which ſentence was either legall or illegall, juſt or unjuſt; if juſt and legall, then there was no wrong nor injuſtice at all done in the caſe, and ſo no cauſe of accuſation or complaint againſt me, or thoſe who gave it; if illegall and unjuſt, the Judges who gave the ſentence muſt anſwer for it, not I, who proſecuted them onelyonly in a legall way, and left them to judge according to Law and Juſtice: Beſides, ſome of the profits of the purchaſed impropriations, were beſtowed towards the maintainance of Lecturers at Saint Antholins, contrary to the truſt and intention, and Parſons not wholly conformable to the Church of England were put into ſome of them; therefore I conceived that I did but my duty in queſtioning & ſuppeſſing them as I did: For Doctor Heylins Sermon, it concernes not me, he ſpake therein of the Feoffees, according as he conceived of them, and if any thing be miſtaken he muſt anſwer for it: As for Maſter Foxly, I did onelyonly check him for his forwardneſſe in this work, which I conceived would prove miſchievous to the Church.

To which was replied; Firſt, that the originall draught of theſe Conſiderations was produced under his owne hand; that it was but a tranſcript out of Biſhop Reply.Harſnets Copy, the originall Author of them, is but his owne bare ſurmiſe, without any proofe or colour: But admit Harſnet firſt contrived them, yet he was the onelyonly man that preſented them to the King, and cauſed them to be put p. 538in execution, to the ſuppreſſion of Lecturers, Lectures, preaching; therefore the miſchiefe produced by them muſt reſt on him alone. Secondly, it is true, the Inſtructions were ſent to him by his Predeceſſor Abbot, as from the King; but we have proved, that himſelfe firſt procured, contrived, preſented them to the King, to be put in execution, and cauſed the King to ſend them to Archbiſhop Abbot, to communicate them to all the Biſhops of his Province; and ſo zealous was he in the purſuit of them in his owne Dioceſſe of London, that he ſuppreſſed many Lectures and Lecturers by colour of them; yea, ſuch was his activity in their originall contrivance and ſubſequent execution, that the Deane and Chapter of Canterbury certified all their proceedings on them, not to Archbiſhop Abbot, but to him, being then but Biſhop of London, and complained to him of the Archbiſhops remiſneſſe in ſeeing them duly executed in ſuch ſort as they deſired, as we have fully manifeſted: Therefore all the miſchiefe in ſuppreſſing of Lectures and preaching, by meanes or colour of them, muſt light upon his head, the originall contriver and chiefe proſecutor of them; yea, all Biſhop Wrens, Biſhop Mountagues, and Biſhop Pierces Viſitations Articles, and ſuppreſſions of preaching, Lecturers and Lectures, muſt be attributed to & charged upon him, becauſe they originally ſprang from theſe Injunctions of his contrivance; becauſe he was acquainted with, and countenanced, approved them in all their wicked proceedings, of which they gave a particular annuall account to him in writing, found in his Study under their owne hands, and never checked but animated them in their perſecutions, ſuppreſſions of godly Miniſters, Lectures, Preaching, Et qui non prohibet malum quod poteſt, jubet, is the very reſolution of the Canon Law. Thirdly, the Orders for Combination Lectures, tending to ſuppreſſe or make them meerly ſuperſtitious or ceremoniall uſeleſſe Ordinances, though not made immediately by him, did yet ſpring originally from him, were ſent up to, and not revoked, but approved by him, and Sir John Lambe his creature, and no Biſhops durſt to have made or enjoyned them without his previous approbation or direction; therefore he muſt beare the blame and guilt of them. Fourthly, for the Kings Letter touching Ordination of Miniſters, we have proved it to be his owne (the Originall thereof being penned, corrected by himſelfe) not the Kings, whom he over-reached, abuſed in it: For though the pretence and letter of it ſeemed very faire and neceſſary, yet the intention and execution of it by the Archbiſhop, was moſt impious, deteſtable, to ſuppreſſe Lecturers, Lectures, Preaching, and deter all pious, conſcientious Schollers from the Miniſtery, as we have plentifully manifeſted, to which he hath offered no reply; nor yet to his preſſing of the Book of Sports, for the like purpoſe. Fiftly, for his ſilencing Maſter Leigh and others Lecturers, his anſwer is very defective, ſince he cannot prove him factious or ſciſmaticall, nor yet Maſter Randall, they being known to be orthodox and conformable: The onelyonly crime they were guilty of was, that they were diligent, painfull Preachers, and did much good among the people; and therefore his Letter concerning Maſter Leigh is poſitive, That if nothing can be fastened on him, whereby he may be cenſured; HOWEVER let him not obtaine any licenſe to Lecture there, &c. for the See here p. 381.Church hath not need of ſuch men: And Maſter Randalls fault was onelyonly this, that he preached long Sermons on Sundayes in the afternoon, and for this they muſt be and were ſuſpended from preaching. Sixtly, for the Feoffees to purchaſe in impropriations, it was a moſt pious work, to the great benefit of the Church and peoples ſoules, approved generally by the worſt of men and Biſhops; that the overthrow of it was his owne act and deſigne, we have undeniably proved it by his owne DIARY, and ſundry witneſſes from his owne mouth; that any ever complained to him thereof as dangerous to the Church, is but his owne bare allegation, void of truth; he naming neither the perſons complaining, nor the time of their complaint: That it would introduce a Miniſtery independent on the Biſhops, is a falſe ſurmiſe, ſince none were recommended to officiate or preach at any of the purchaſed Impropriations, but by ſpeciall licenſe of the Biſhops in p. 539whoſe they were, and none were preſented to them but conformable men, free from all juſt exceptions, & if he could juſtly except againſt ought in their proceedings, Maſter White depoſeth, he offered that he himſelfe ſhould rectifie it, ſo as the work might proceed; but this would not content him, but they muſt be ſuppreſſed and criminally proceeded againſt: That he did it in a legall way, is no juſtification nor excuſe, ſince thoſe who work and accompliſh miſchiefe by colour of Law, are worſe then open Tyrants: For the ſentence, no doubt it was moſt unjuſt, and ſo the Earle of Dorſet, who was preſent at it, told the King himſelf, affirming the buying in of Impropriations to be the beſt work that ever was ſet on foot, for the Churches good; his owne beging the Impropriations in Ireland from the Crowne, for the pretended good of the Church, proves it infallibly againſt himſelfe: But that the Judges onelyonly muſt anſwer for this unjuſt ſentence, not he, is a meer Nonſequitur; becauſe the Law reſolves, that Plus peccat Author quàm Actor; and the Judges had never given ſuch an unjuſt ſentence in this cauſe, had not he by his violence, power, fraud, interreſſing the King himſelfe againſt the Feoffees, over-awed, ſwayed the Judges to ſwarve from the rules of Piety and Juſtice: That ſome of the revenues of purchaſed Impropriations were contributed towards the maintainance of Saint Antholins Lecturers, is true; but that it was a miſ-imploying by them contrary to truſt, or that any unworthy or unconformable Miniſters were put into them, is a groſſe falſhood, diſproved by Maſter White upon Oath: However, had it been true, he ſhould then have reformed the abuſe, not utterly deſtroyed the good work, ſo much conducing to Gods glory, and the peoples edification: For Heylins Sermon, it was preſented to, retained, approved, yea himſelfe advanced by him, and no doubt he preached it by his direction: As for Maſter Foxly, he did not onelyonly check, but perſecute, impriſon, and moſt barbarouſly handle him to his undoing, onelyonly for his promoting this pious project, even after he had quite overthrowne it, and openly vaunted of this his wickedneſſe: All which conſidered, each branch of this charge ſticks moſt immovably upon him, notwithſtanding all his evaſions to ſhake it off.

The ſixteenth charge urged againſt me is, That I have endeavoured to cauſe diviſion and diſcord between the Church of England and other reformed Churches, Obje. 16.and endeavoured to ſuppreſſe the Priviledges & Immunities of the reformed Dutch and French Churches in this Kingdome; wherein it was objected: Firſt, that I eſteemed them no Churches of God or Chriſt at all, becauſe they …nted Biſhope which they endeavoured to prove by mine owne Conference with Fiſher, Biſhop Hals Propoſitions, approved by me, and Biſhop Mountagues Book, authorized by my Chaplaine. Secondly, that I deemed their Religion and ours not to be one, but different, and their Religion not to be the true Religion: Upon which ground I grew angry with Maſter Ruly, and cauſed the Letters-Patents granted by the King for a Collection for the Palatinate Miniſters, to be revoked after they had paſſed the great Seale, and a clauſe in them to be expunged, to their great injury and ſcandall, as Maſter Wakerly and Maſter Hartlib atteſted. Thirdly, that I cauſed the Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies of the Palſ… Church to be called in and ſuppreſſed. Fourthly, That I moleſted the DUTCH, FRENCH and WALLOONE reformed Churches in England ſundry yeers, and infringed their ancient Priviledges by my Injunctions in divers particulars.

To this I anſwer in generall, that I deny both the Charge and Article, and that I have endeavoured to promote and preſerve peace between the Proteſtant Anſw.Churches abroad, and encouraged Maſter Dury, who was imployed to make a reconciliation between the Calviniſts and Lutherans beyond the Seas, as I could evidence by ſundry of his Letters; therefore I had a good affection to theſe Churches, and no intent to make any diſcord between them: To the objected particulars I anſwer;

p. 540Firſt, that in my Conference with Fiſher, I cite only S^t Jeroms words, to prove a difference in order and degree, between a Biſhop and ordinary Presbyter, and inferre from his words, as his opinion, not mine; ſo even with him, no Biſhop, no Church. But it hath been objected, that Biſh. Mountagues Book determines expreſly, that there can be no Church without Biſhops, nor Miniſters but ſuch who are ordained by Dioceſian Biſh. diſtinct from an ordinary Miniſter, and that no Miniſter (no not in caſe of neceſſity) can be ordained by any other; therefore the forraign Proteſtant Churches, which have no ſuch Biſhops, and their Miniſters, being not ordained by Biſhops, but other Presbyters, can be no Churches nor Miniſters: I anſwer, that this Book and opinion of his concernes not me, being none of mine but the Authors: Yea, but I maintained and approved the ſame opinion in effect in Biſhop Hals Propoſitions touching Epiſcopacy, to which I endeavoured to procure a generall ſubſcription, preſſing it upon others; and therein I determine, That there was no Church of Chriſt upon earth ever ſince the Apostles times governed otherwiſe then by Biſhops; and that this government is unalterable, and ought to be perpetuated in the Church to the end of the world: Which doth wholly unchurch all the reformed Churches, and reſolve them to be no Churches of Chriſt. I anſwer, that theſe Propoſitions were ſent me by Biſhop Hall, of his owne accord, that what I did in them was by his conſent, neither were any preſſed to ſubſcribe them, nor they propounded concludingly: And though Epiſcopacy be not alterable, yet it may be regulated: That it is unalterable, Biſhop Bilſon hath proved it long ſince, it continuing ſo in all Churches at leaſt fifteen hundred yeers after Chriſt, and is allowed, approved by the Book of Ordination; yea Maſter Calvin himſelfe on that of John, As my Father ſent me, ſo ſend I you, acknowledgeth the perpetuity of Biſhops in the Church.

Secondly, I deny that I eſteem the Reformed Churches Religion & ours not to be the ſame; true it is, we & they differ in ſome particular points of Doctrin as wel as in Diſciplin; but this makes us not wholly to differ in Religion, nor did I deny their Religion to be true: As for Maſter Ruly, I uſed him very civilly with all reſpect, and promoted the Collection for the Palatinate all I could, having received a Letter from the Queen of Bohemia for that purpoſe: True it is, I cauſed the objected clauſe in the firſt Patent of the Collection to be altered, but it was by the Kings direction, who gave order for it, upon my acquainting him therwith; and I conceive there was ground enough to doe it: Firſt, becauſe ſome of the Palatinate Divines (as Paraus upon the Romans) differed from our Church in ſome points of Doctrine touching the Kings Supremacy, concurring therein with the Papiſts;) for which his Book was here publickly condemned, burnt, and likewiſe in ſome other points,) therefore it could not be properly ſaid that their Religion and ours was the ſame in all particulars: Secondly, it ſeemed to determine a great controverſie between Proteſtant Divines among themſelves, and likewiſe between them and the Church of Rome; whether the Pope be Antichriſt? which was never yet determined by any Councell, and of which there is great doubt and difference in opinion even among the learned: Now I conceived it a very unfitting thing to determine ſuch a doubtfull controverſie definitively by Letters. Patents under the great Seale, which is not yet reſolved in the Schooles. Upon theſe grounds the King thought fit to revoke the Patent, though it were under the Great Seale, which I had no power to recall, but the KING onelyonly.

Thirdly, I deny that I called in the Declaration of the Palſgraves Religion, neither doe I rememeber any ſuch thing: Fourthly, it is true, that I queſtioned the Dutch and Walloone Churches, but not for any ancient Priviledges, but onelyonly for their encroachments beyond their priviledges, to the prejudice of our Engliſh Churches and Pariſhes wherein they lived; yet my Injunctions and proceedings towards them in this kind, were ſo faire and juſt, that they reſted ſatisfied with them, and returned me ſpeciall thanks for my favour towards them and their p. 541Congregations; therefore I much mervaile that this my carriage ſhould be ſo much blamed, as to make it a CAPITALL CRIME and CHARGE againſt me.

To this was replyed in the generall, that the premiſed proofes, with his late military proceedings againſt the Scots, for complying with thoſe Churches in Reply.their Doctrine, Diſcipline, Government, ſufficiently evidence his enmity to, his oppoſition againſt thoſe forraigne Proteſtant Churches, becauſe they had no Biſhops; inſomuch that he blamed Biſhop Hall for dealing ſo mildly with them in his Book for Epiſcopacy, which he ſubmitted to his cenſure, where on the contrary he is ſo zealous of the Popes honour, that he could not but complaine to the King of ſome harſh paſſages in it, beſtowing the Title of Antichriſt on his Holineſſe, and procured a ſpeciall command from his Majeſty to the Biſhop to expunge them, to gratifie the Pope; yea, his purging out the objected clauſe in the Kings Patent, and ſuppreſſing of the Declaration of Palatinate Churches Faith and Religion, argues little affection in him to thoſe Churches, and much inward rancour againſt them, but a very high eſteem of Rome: As for his encouraging of Maſter Dury in his deſigne of reconciling the Calvinists and Lutherans, Maſter Dury undertook this worke without his privity or advice, and found ſo ſmall encouragement from him, that he oft complained thereof to his friends, as we are credibly informed.

To the particulars we reply; Firſt, that in his Conference with Fiſher, he doth not recite, but miſrecite and pervert Saint Jeroms words and opinion; who dogmatically reſolves in his very Epiſtle to Evagrius, which this Archbiſhop quotes, and elſwhere; That Biſhops and Presbyters Jure Divino, are both one and the ſame, as well in Juriſdiction as Office, and that Presbyters have the power of Ordination as well as Biſhops: Therefore his appropriating of the word Sacerdos and Jeroms ſaying, Ʋbi non eſt Sacerdos non eſt Eccleſia; to Dioceſian Biſhops, which he cleerly meanes of Prieſts and Miniſters in generall, is a groſſe perverting of Jeroms meaning; and his inferene thence: So even with him, NO BISHOP and NO CHƲRCH, is only a Declaration of his owne private opinion, not of Jeroms, who held no ſuch Prelaticall Paradox: For Biſhop Mountagues Book, it was licenſed by his Chaplaine, preſented to, received, approved by himſelfe: Biſhop Hals Propoſitions were not onelyonly interlined with, but allowed under his owne hand, as fit for a generall ſubſcription, and now he juſtifies them not onelyonly by Biſhop Bilſons opinion, but likewiſe by Maſter Calvins, as great an enemy to Biſhops as Saint Jerome, whoſe words he wilfully perverts as he did his, in applying that to Dioceſian Biſhops, which he ſpake onelyonly of ordinary Miniſters, who ſucceeded the Apoſtles in their Miniſteriall Function: In briefe, his owne Conference, together with Mountagues Book, and Biſhop Hals Propoſitions, approved by him, doe neceſſarily unchurch all the reformed Proteſtant Curches, un-miniſter all their Miniſters, and make them no Churches no Miniſters of Chriſt; whereas he averres the Church of Rome to be a true Church, and her Prieſts to be true Miniſters, as we have formerly proved; therefore he muſt needs be guilty of the extreameſt malignity and anmity againſt them, what ever he pretends to the contrary.

Secondly, he denies, and yet at laſt juſtifies and maintains what we charge him with, to wit, that he denies the Religion of forraign Proteſtant Churches to be the ſame with ours, or to be true Religion; & he inſtanceth in the opinion of Paraeus, whoſe Commentary on the Romans he cauſed to be burnt as erronious, when as he writes no more then Bilſon did before him (whom himſelf hath cited in defence of Epiſcopacy) & other orthodox Writers of our Church have maintained publickly for truth before & ſince: As for the burning of Paraus his Book, being of a forraign Nation and no Subject to our King, without ſummoning him to defend himſelfe, it was an unjuſt, raſh, inconſiderate action, to ſay no more, as his Son hath manifeſted to the world in print, who hath juſtified his Fathers opinion to the full, as orthodox: However, the extravagant opinion of one Palatinate Divine, in p. 542point onelyonly of the Kings Supremacy (not about any Article of Faith) cannot make the reformed Churches and ours to be of different Religions, eſpecially ſince he argues in his Star-chamber Speech, that the Papiſts Religion and ours are both one, though we differ in ſome private Tenets: Yea, his deniall of the Proteſtants Religion in forraigne parts to be the true Religion, when as he contends that Rome is a true Church, argues his virulency againſt the one, and good affection to the other. Thirdly, the calling in of the Declaration of the Palſgraves Religion, is directly and punctually proved to be his act; its impudency therefore in him to deny it, and policy not to remember it. Fourthly, for the purgation and revocation of the Letters-Patents, he not onelyonly confeſſeth, but ſhameleſly juſtifies it (moſt undutifully laying the blame, the ſcandall of it on the King himſelfe, who did naught therein but by his inſtigation) and that upon two falſe, ſcandalous grounds: Firſt, that the Religion of the forraigne Palatinate Churches and ours differ and are not the ſame: then which falſhood nothing can procure a greater ſciſme and juſter ground of ſcandall between us and thoſe Churches. Secondly, that no Councill had defined the Pope to be Antichriſt, of which there was great variety of opinions amongſt Proteſtant Divines touching the ſame, unfit to be decided by the Kings Letters-Patents. Therefore he purged it out becauſe it intimated the Pope to be Antichriſt, and ſubjection to him an Antichristian Yoke of bondage; both which compared with his Purgations out of Biſhop Hals Book of Epiſcopacy to the ſame effect) proves him a Papiſt with a witneſſe, and a ſpeciall friend to the Popes Holineſſe, of whoſe honour among us he is extraordinary tender: That the Pope is the Antichriſt, all aaSee here p. 276. to 279. Catalogus Teſtium veritatisForraign & Domeſtick Proteſtant Divines (and ſome Papiſts too) unanimouſly agree, except Mountague and Shelford, his creatures: And whereas he pretends, no Councill hath ſo determined: We anſwer, that the bbSee Doctor Crakenthorp of the Popes temporal Monarchy, p. 167.Synod of Gape in France, Anno 1603. the whole Synod and Convocation in Ireland, Ann. 1615. in the very Articles of their Religion, Num. 80. with the whole Convocation and Parliament of England, in the Act for the Subſidy of the Clergy, 30 Jacobi, to omit others, define the Pope to be the Antichriſt, and Popery Antichristian, more fully then thoſe Letters-Patents; and why theſe new Letters-Patents ſhould not determine them to be ſuch, as well as the old ones both in King James and in King Charles their Reignes, but muſt now be revoked after they had paſſed the great Seale of England, becauſe this Archbiſhop would have it ſo, tranſcends any mans capacity to gueſſe at any other probable reaſon, except onelyonly this Prelats affection both to the Pope and Popery, or enmity againſt the reformed Churches and their Religion: For his incivilities to Maſter Ruly by reaſon of this clauſe, our Witneſſes teſtimoniall will outſway his bare deniall of them. Fiftly, the premiſes abundantly manifeſt to all, that the Archbiſhop invaded, diminiſhed the ancient Immunities and Priviledges of the Dutch and Walloon Churches in all parts, not their pretended encroachments onelyonly upon our Churches Priviledges, and that he was ſo farre from being their friend, that they eſteemed him then their greateſt enemy: If they formerly returned him any thanks (by way of Court-complement) for not taking away all their priviledges, as well as ſome of them, after many yeers hot conteſt, we are certaine they juſtly complained of him ten times more for invading, depriving them of ſundry of their ancient Immunities, which almoſt brought their Churches to utter ruine: In few words, his owne forecited Papers, and Monſieur Bulteels Booke of the manifold troubles of thoſe Churches by this Arch-Prelats proſecution, will abundantly falſifie this his pretended friendſhip towards them, and remaine as a laſting Record againſt him to Poſterity. All which conſidered, the whole Bulk and every particle of all the proofs and evidences produced by us to make good the firſt branch of the Commons firſt generall Charge of High-treaſon againſt him, remaine altogether unſhaken, unavoyded, maugre all his ſophiſticall evaſions, proteſtations and ſhifting anſwers to them. And ſo much for the firſt branch of his firſt generall Charge.

p. 543The Archbiſhops Defence and Anſwers to the COMMONS Evidence in the maintenance of the Second Branch of their firſt Generall Charge, touching his Endevours to reconcile the Church of England to the Church of Rome, and the Commons Reply thereunto.

I Proceed now to the Archbiſhops Defence againſt the Second Branch of the Commons firſt Generall Charge; to wit, his Endevours to reconcile the Church Obje. 17.of England to the Church of Rome.

To this he gave ſome general Anſwers in his Generall Defence at the Lords Barre, Septemb. 2. 1644. to this effect: My Lords (ſaid he) I am charged for endevouring Anſwer.to introduce Popery, and reconcile the Church of England to the Church of Rome: I ſhall recite the ſum of the Evidence and Arguments given in for to prove it.

Firſt, I have in my firſt Speech, nominated divers perſons of Eminency, whom I reduced from Popery to our Church. And if this be ſo, then the Argument againſt me is this; I converted many from Popery, Ergo, I went about to bring in Popery, and to reconcile the Church of England to the Church of Rome.

Secondly, I am charged to be the Author of the, &c. Oath in the New Canons, parcell of which Oath is to abjure Popery, and that I will not ſubject the Church of England to the Church of Rome. (A more ſtrict Oath then ever was made againſt Popery in any age or Church.) And then the argument againſt me is this; I made and tooke an Oath to abjure Popery, and not to ſubject the Church of England to the Church of Rome. Therefore I was inclinable to Popery, and endeavoured to ſubject the Church of England to the Church of Rome.

Thirdly, the third Canon (of the late New ones) was made by me, which is againſt Popery; and then the Argument is; I made a Canon againſt Popery; Ergo, I was inclinable to, and endevoured to introduce it.

Fourthly, I was twice ſeriouſly offered a Cardinalſhip, and I refuſed it; becauſe I would not be ſubject to the Pope and Church of Rome; Ergo, I was addicted to Popery, and endevoured to reduce the Church of England into ſubjection to the Church of Rome.

Fiftly, I writ a Booke againſt Popery, in Anſwer to Fiſher the Jeſuit; and then the Argument is this; I writ a Book againſt Popery; Ergo, I am inclinable to Popery, and laboured to introduce it.

Sixtly, it is alledged, I concealed and cheriſhed the Plot of the Jeſuits diſcovered by Habernfeild; and therefore I intended to bring in Popery, and reduce the Church of England to the Church of Rome. I amſwer, either this Plot was not reall; and if ſo, then Romes Masterpeece is quite blowne up, and publiſhed in vaine. Or elſe it was reall, & then I was really in danger of my life, for oppoſing Popery and this Plot. Then the Argument from it muſt be this; I was in danger of my life for cheriſhing the Jeſuites Plot of reducing the Church of England to the Church of Rome; Ergo, I cheriſhed and endevoured to effect this Plot.

Seventhly, I laboured to make a reconciliation between the Lutherans and Calvinists; Ergo, I laboured to introduce Popery, and make a reconciliation between the Church of England and the Church of Rome.

p. 544This generall defence and ſcoffing anſwer of his at the Lords Barre, ſeemed very ſpecious to ſome ignorant Auditors, who took theſe feined objections of Reply.his owne forging, to be the arguments, and maine ſtrength of the Commons Evidence produced, to convict him of a ſerious endeavour to ſubvert the Proteſtant Religion, introduce popery, and reconcile the Church of England unto Rome; when as the Commons made no ſuch objections from the Evidence and proofs againſt him: Wherupon they replyed, that he did but fight with his owne ſhadow, and abſurd arguments of his owne framing (as he did in his Sear-chamber Speech) inſtead of repeating and anſwering their reall Objections and proofs againſt him, transforming his owne defence into their Charge and Evidence; a meer ſophiſticall, Jeſuiticall practice, of which he made uſe throughout his Tryall, to which we ſhall reply in order.

Firſt, the Commons never objected, that ever he reduced any from popery, but that many were ſeduced to, and hardened in it by his meanes: Their Objection being; He was a meanes of ſeducing many to, and obdurating thouſands in popery, by his introducing popiſh Doctrines, Innovations, Ceremonies, &c. Ergo, he went about to bring in popery, and reduce us back to Rome: That he reduced any from popery, is but his owne bare allegation in his firſt Speech and generall Defence, without any proofe at all, but his owne bare word, which the Commons denied; himſelfe confeſſing, that ſome of the eminenteſt of them preſently relapſed after their converſion, and lived and dyed Papiſts: See then the falſhood and fallacy of this miſ-repeating Sophiſter, in the very firſt entrance and principall argument of his generall Defence.

Secondly, to his ſecond and third arguments we retort; That the Commons never gave in evidence againſt his making or impoſing the &c. Oath, or third new Canon, to prove him guilty of introducing popery, or endeavoring to reconcile us to Rome, but to two other different purpoſes, which he wholly pretermits; therefore his two arguments from them, as the Commons own, are meer forgeries, impoſtures of his owne: As for the &c. Oath, it hath no ſuch clauſe in it as is pretended; indeed it hath this clauſe, That I will not endeavour by my ſelfe or any other directly or indirectly, to bring in any Popiſh Doctrine, contrary to that which is establiſhed; which is but a meere pretence and policy, all or moſt popiſh Doctrins and Ceremonies being introduced, licenſed, eſtabliſhed among us when this Oath was made, as the premiſes evidence, and no Doctrine being then eſteemed Popiſh but what the Archbiſhop pleaſed, though truly ſuch: As for the third Canon, it enjoynes onelyonly private conference with popiſh Recuſants, and preſentments, excommunications of ſuch of them who are obſtinate, and if they conforme not, then that their names ſhall be preſented to the Judges of the Aſſi…e, which is no more then other aaCan. 63.Canons formerly enjoyned to no purpoſe or … at all, and was but a meer State-policy to ſtay the preſent elamours of the people and Scots againſt the Prelats, for their connivance at popery and confederacy Can. 65, 66.with Papiſts, againſt thoſe they ſtiled Puritans, and a thing not really intended, but pretended onelyonly.

Thirdly, his fourth, fift and fixt arguments are of the ſame nature, meer Chimeraes of his owne forging, which he would father on the Commons, who preſſed theſe particulars againſt him in a far other manner, to which he gives no anſwer: His refuſing of a Cardinals Cap, was onelyonly becauſe he deſired to be an abſolute independent Patriarch and Pope within the Kings Dominions: His Book againſt Fiſher was publiſhed in his owne name upon entreaty of others, onelyonly to blind the world, and ſtop the clamours againſt him, in making them beleeve thereby he was no friend to Papiſts or popery, when as we have proved the contrary out of that and other of his books. To that of Habernfield we ſhall anſwer in due ſeaſon; ſome deeming it onelyonly a forgery or plot of his owne deviſing to juſtifie himſelfe, others a reall truth.

Fourthly, his ſeventh argument is a moſt wilfull perverſion of the Commons p. 545charge, who expreſly impeach him for endeavouring to cauſe diviſion and diſcord between our owne and other reformed Churches, that ſo Papists might have the more advantage; which we have abundantly proved. And he makes the charge to be, that he endeavoured a reconciliatiou between the Lutherans and Calvinists (of which good act he was never guilty in the leaſt degree, for ought he makes appeare, but of the quite contrary) Ergo, to reconcile the Church of ENGLAND to the Church of ROME.

By which ſtrange prevarication and Jeſuiticall ſophiſtry, the world may cleerly diſcerne, the ſophiſtry, fallacy, and apparent Legerdemaine of this his generall Defence, and impertinency of his Anſwers, encountring onelyonly his owne ridiculous fictions, not the Commons reall Objections.

Having recited theſe his generall Anſwers, we ſhall purſue him to his particular evaſions to the evidence and proofes produced, to make good the ſecond Branch of his firſt generall Charge, wherein he thus proceeded.

The firſt thing objected againſt me is, That I have ever been generally reputed a Papiſt, or perſon popiſhly affected, both in the Univerſity of Oxford, whiles reſident Obje. 1. Page 409. to 415.there, and ever ſince; as likewiſe in Rome and in other forraigne parts; for proofe whereof, the teſtimonies of Doctor Featly, Sir Nathaniel Brent, Doctor Abbots Sermon, Doctor Hals Letter, Francis Harris his Depoſition, with the teſtimonies of Sir Henry Mildmay, Maſter Anthony Mildmay, and Maſter Thomas Challoner have been produced.

To this I anſwer; Firſt, that all theſe are but hear-ſayes or reports, and no Anſwer.convincing Evidence, that I was really a Papiſt, or inclined unto popery: Doctor Featlies teſtimony is but a report from one who ſaid he was my Pupill, and that at Paris many yeers ſince, in forraigne parts: Sir Nathaniel Brents teſtimony is but a report from Maſter Dale, of a thing long ſince, that my ſuppoſition was taken out of Bellarmine, which I deny: His further teſtimony is onelyonly this, That Browne, with whom I kept company, was but a reputed (not an actuall) Papiſt during his life, and what he ſubjoynes, that he was found to be ſuch a one after his death, is very conſecturall; for it appeares not that the Book objected was of his owne penning, though it were his hand-writing, for it might be a tranſcript: That I petitioned to King James, that I was traduced to be a Papiſt, is true, and I had good reaſon ſo to doe when I was thus traduced; and upon my Petition, the buſineſſe was referred to the examination of divers worthy perſons, and I cleered upon full hearing by the King: For Doctor Abbots Sermon, I complained of it, as I had cauſe, as being traduced by it; he was knowne to be my enemy, and to doe me wrong herein, therefore his words are not to be valued in this caſe; nor Doctor Hals Letter to W. L. which might be to ſome other as well as to me, who am not nominated therein: For Francis Harris his teſtimony, I never knew nor ſaw the man to my knowledge, and it is but a hearſay from one Ireland many yeers ſince, and that beyondthe Sea; for Ireland himſelfe I onelyonly knew, but had nofamiliar acquaintance with him.

Secondly, for Sir Henry Mildmayes teſtimony, it is onelyonly a bare rumour and report from ſome perſons at Rome, unknowne both to me and him, purpoſely raiſed by the Papiſts to blaſt or wound my reputation, and what he now atteſted is quite contrary to that himſelfe informed me at my Table at Lambeth, immediatly after his returne from Rome, as I am ready to depoſe upon my corporall Oath, if I may be permitted: His Brother Maſter Anthony Mildmay his teſtimony is but an incertaine report from I know not whom at Rome, that I was ſomewhat more favourable to their Religion then my Predeceſſors; and what he heard from Father Fitton, is but his report, and a falſe one too, of purpoſe to ſlander me, or deceive their Proſelites there: For Maſter Challoners teſtimony, it is but a report too, from I know not whom, and a diſcourſe of others to him, without any ground ariſing from me; and I have cauſe to feare, that what he teſtified was meerly out of ſpleen, and a meer engine to ruine me, becauſe upon p. 546complaint I cauſed him to be Committed for ſome high Offences charged againſt him, amounting to little leſſe then Treaſon; to avoyd which, he was enforced to fly beyond the Seas, where he heard theſe reports concerning me, it we may beleeve him; which are no evidence at all in Law.

To this the Commons replied; Firſt, that though common fame be no convincing Reply.evidence of it ſelf, yet in many caſes both in common, Civill and Canon Law, it is a good ground of ſuſpition, aaDeut. 13. 12, 13, 14. Joſh: 22. 11, 12.Deut 13:12Deut 13:13Deut 13:14inquiſition, accuſation and apprehenſion too, eſpecially if it be a generall, univerſall and long continued fame both abroad and beyond the Seas, as this is; but being ſeconded with concurrent actions (as his) it is a moſt ſatisfactory proofe; and in ſuch a caſe, vox populi, eſt vox Dei: Beſides, himſelfe gave the occaſion of this evidence, by his examining Sir Henry Mildmay, to know what report they gave, and what opinon or repute they had of him at Rome when he was there? Whether he were not the moſt odious man to them of any living, &c. If the reports and common fame they heard of him at Rome were no evidence at all to cleer him, as he reputed it; why then did he produce Sir Henry, as a principall witneſſe for him, and examine him meerly what report and repute he had at Rome? If he conceived it good evidence to cleere him, in caſe Sir Henries teſtimony had proved anſwerable to his expectation, then certainly it muſt be as available to confirme and prove his guilt, yea Sir Henries teſtimony falling quite croſſe to what he pretended, muſt needs be farre ſtronger againſt him, then it could have been for him, had he teſtified what the Archbiſhop pretended; becauſe he is a witneſſe of his owne producing, and had been but a ſingle witneſſe for him, but is ſeconded with two more concurrent teſtimonies againſt him, even concerning the opinion they had of him in Rome it ſelfe, which is backed with a generall opinion of the ſame kind both among Papiſts and Proteſtants too, who concurred in their judgements and reports concerning his good affection to Popery, and endeavours to reconcile us to the Church of Rome: Yea, as this good opinion and report concerning him was univerſall in all places, both abroad and at home, ſo it is fortified by a publike charge in Parliament given in againſt him, by the two whole Kingdomes of England and Scotland, and confirmed by ſo many pregnant evidences of all ſorts, that it muſt made be granted to be a moſt enforcing, convincing argument of his guilt; the rather becauſe himſelfe gave the firſt occaſion of this kind of euidenes: For Doctor Featlies teſtimony, it is a report of one of the Archbiſhope owne Pupils, who haſt knew his opinions: Sir Nathaniel Brents teſtimony is upon his owne knowledge, ratified by the concurrent opinions of others, grounded upon his popiſh ſuppoſition taken out of Bellarmine, his familiarity with Maſter Browne a reputed Papiſt, Noſcitur ex Comite: Upon his owne confeſſion in his Petition, and the common fame of the Univerſity; that he was cleered upon his Petition of this imputation he produceth no evidence at all, neither mentions he any particular time when, nor perſons by whom he was cleered: For Doctor Abbots Sermon, it is the cleareſt teſtimony in the world, that he was then generally reputed a Papiſt in the Univerſity both by Proteſtants, and Papiſts, and likewiſe in forraigne parts, for which cauſe alone and no other, this Doctor was his enemy: As for his complaint againſt it as injurious, it no way extenuates nor takes off the common fame and reputation of being a Papiſt, which Doctor Hals … (not denied by him to be written and meant of himſelfe) and Francis Harris his teſtimony ſecond and confirme: Whereas he faith, he never know nor ſaw this Harris, this invalids not his teſtimony, and his little acquaintance in reallity, that he knew him, if not, … & in …ute, by … Fame and … putation, to be a Papiſt in heart opinion, and the onelyonly thing for which are produce his teſtimony.

Secondly, for Sir Henry Mildmayes teſtimony, it is more then a bare report, for he teſtifies on his owne certaine knowledge, that which the Archbiſhop produced him to prove, what opinion the Jeſuits, Prieſts and Popiſh… …ad of him at Rome p. 547when he was there, together with the reaſons of their opinions and report; and he depoſeth the truth hereof quite contrary to what the Archbiſhop ſuggeſted: whoſe Oath is not to be credited in his owne caſe, to impeach Sir Henries teſtimony, fortified with two others concurring with it: The like we anſwer to Captaine Anthony Mildmayes and Maſter Challoners teſtimonies; they both depoſe what opinions and reports the Popes Nuncio Con, Father Fitton, Father Talbot, and other Engliſh Jeſuits, Priests and forraigne Papists had of the Archbiſhops good affection to their Religion, and how inſtrumentall he was to introduce Popery, and reduce us backe to ROME, declaring punctually each particular: Therefore their teſtimonies are all reall, and no hear-ſayes or bare reports, as he pretends. As for Maſter Challoners pretended malice, it is but a bare ſurmiſe, and being a Gentleman of quality and integrity, this poore pretence is altogether inſufficient to diſparage his teſtimony upon Oath: The rather, becauſe the Archbiſhops endeavours to impriſon and bring him into the High Commiſſion heretofore, was, onelyonly for ſpeaking of the Prieſts and Jeſuits Plots to bring in Popery, and ſome of our Biſhops compliance with them; the party who complained againſt him, being both a Prieſt and Jeſuit, now in actuall Armes againſt the Parliament, in the Kings Army, (as Maſter Challoner depoſed;) a great confirmation of the truth of his Teſtimony, and of the Archbiſhops guilt. In few words, all theſe recited teſtimonies, what opinion they had at Oxford heretofore, and at Rome, and other places ſince, of his being a Papiſt, and confederating with them in their Deſigne of introducing Popery by inches, and reducing us backe to Rome, compared with his preceding practiſes, doe fix this charge ſo faſt upon him, that all his Sophiſtry or Oratory cannot ſhake it off.

The ſecond thing objected is this, That there was a dangerous Plot laid and ſeriouſly purſued, to introduce Popery, and reconcile the Church of England Object. 2.to the Church of Rome, to which I was privy, and had certaine notice of it, yet I complyed with it, and never laboured to prevent it; which the Commons laboured to prove by divers generall inſtances: Firſt, by the Spaniſh Match, propounded to the King when Prince of Wales, and his ſending over into Spaine, of purpoſe to pervert him in his Religion, as appeares by the Articles of the Treaty; the Popes Letters to the Prince and Biſhop of Conchen when in Spaine, the Articles of the Duke of Buckingham againſt the Lord Digby, and the Lord Digbies againſt him in full Parliament, Anno 1626. To which they Object I was privy, becauſe I was Confeſſor to the Duke, and his Cabinet Counſell at that time, and becauſe my Letter to Biſhop Hall, my owne Diary, and Letters to and from the Duke, whiles in Spaine, with the Note in my Maſſe Booke diſcover and confirme it: Secondly, by the French Match with the Queen promoted purpoſely to uſher in Popery, and to reconcile us unto Rome; to which they Object I was privy and aſſiſtant, as my Letters to the Duke, my intimacy and compliance with the Queen, my inhibitng Miniſters to pray, and puniſhing them for praying for the Queens converſion, my cenſuring of Maſter How for praying, That the young Prince might not be brought up in Popery, with my magnifying of Queen Maries dayes, and depreſſing King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths, demonſtrate.

Secondly, by ſundry particular inſtances; as Firſt, Ludovicus a Sancta Maria his Concluſiones Theologicae: Secondly, the Plot diſcovered to me by Haberufield: Thirdly, the Dedicating of Faſtidius his Works to the King by Cardinall Barbarino: Fourthly, Sancta Clara his Deus, Natura, Gratia, writ of purpoſe to reconcile us to Rome, with which I was acquainted, and maintained the Author of it, Saint Giles, a moſt dangerous ſeducing Prieſt, in the Univerſity of Oxford: Fifthly, the proffers of Cardinalſhips to Engliſh men, and twice to my ſelfe: Sixthly, the ſtrange encreaſe and proceedings of Papiſts, Prieſts, Jeſuits, and the Popiſh Hierarchy in Ireland, to which I was privy, p. 548yet denied it, and incenſed the King, againſt the Commons for complaining of it: Seventhly, the Popes ſending of divers Nuncioes ſucceſſively into England, where they reſided, and were publickly entertained, with our reciprocall ſending and maintaining Agents at Rome, to work a Reducement of us back to that Antichriſtian See.

To this I anſwer, Firſt, that I was neither the Author nor Fomenter of the Anſwer.Spaniſh Match, nor of the Kings Voyage into Spaine, which was charged on the Duke and the Lord Dighy: It is true, my Lord Duke was pleaſed to enter into a neer familiarity with me, and to make me his Confeſſor, and that I writ Letters to him into Spaine, and received Letters from him thence; but this proves not that I was privy to that Plot; as for the Popes Letters to the Prince and the Biſhop of Conchen in Spaine, to pervert him in his Religion, they are nothing to me, and my Letter to Biſhop Hall, was many yeers after that Match broken off.

Secondly, there is no proofe of my furthering the Match with France, or that the end of it was to reduce us back to Rome; the reſpects and ſervices I did for the Queen, were no more then in civility and duty I ought to performe out of the duty I bare to the King my Maſter, whoſe Conſort and Wife ſhe is; her gracious favour towards me, proceeded only from her owne gracious diſpoſition, not from my deſerts or ſeeking; and I had no reaſon to reject it, becauſe it would be a meanes for me to work the more effectually upon her Majeſty: For my giving Order in my Metropolitical Viſitation to my Viſitor, to inhibit Miniſters to pray for the Queens converſion, or queſtioning any for praying for it, I abſolutely deny it; and for Maſter How, he was juſtly cenſured for his prayer, it being ſcandalous to his Majeſty in queſtioning his care of the Princes education in the true Religion, and infuſing jealouſies into the peoples heads, of his education in Popery, and inclination to it. As for my pretended magnifying of Queene Maries dayes, and depreſſing of King Edwards and Queene Elizabeths, in the Preface to the OXFORD STATUTES, I anſwer, that that Preface is none of mine, nor proved to be ſo; and if it were, yet the words relate to the State and Statutes of the Vniverſity of Oxford only in their dayes, not of our Church and Religion.

Secondly, to the particular Inſtances, I anſwer, that the firſt, ſecond and third of them concerne not me: I was neither the cauſe, nor author of, nor privy to them, nor could I hinder them, and the ſecond of them is a ſtrong evidence for me; For the fourth of them, Sancta Clara his Book, it was printed at Lyons, not at London, and Saint Giles was not the Author of it, but another Fryar, I had no hand in it, nor was privy to it; yet it was diſliked by many of the Papiſts, becauſe it gave much advantage to our Church and Religion: For his being at Oxford, it was much againſt my will, by the Kings ſpeciall Warrant, for which I have his hand, and I maintained him not there, but the King. To the fifth, the proffer of Cardinals Caps to others, is nothing to me; and for the offer of a Cardinalſhip to my ſelfe two ſeverall times, as I could not hinder the offers, ſo I rejected them, and acquainted the King both with the perſon and thing, which is all I could doe, expreſſing the cauſe of my refuſall thereof, to be, That ſomething dwelt within me that would not ſuffer that till Rome were other then it is, as appeares by my owne Diary: The ſtrongeſt Evidence that can be to acquit me from any compliancy with Rome. To the ſixth I anſwer, that the encreaſe and proceedings of the Papiſts in Ireland, mentioned in the Objected Letters and Papers, are nothing to me, I was not the cauſe nor author thereof; the Monaſteries and Nu…meries mentioned in them, were but poor little houſes; My anſwer to the Cōmons Remonſtrance was penned by the Kings ſpeciall command, as appears by the endorſment, & I knew not of theſe Iriſh papers, nor of the encreaſe of popery there, whē I returned an anſwer to the Remonſtr. An. 1628. theſe Proclamations, letters, papers being dated ſince that time: for the Deputies letters they are nothing to me, I could not hinder p. 549the writing and directing of them to me, and himſelfe hath already been impeached, condemned for his Actions, for which I am not to anſwer. To the ſeventh I ſay, it was not in my power to hinder the Popes ſending his Nuncioes hither, which the King condiſcended to upon the Queens earneſt deſire, to accommodate and ſatisfie her Majeſty in ſome things which concerned her in her Religion. For the Agents ſent and reſiding in Rome they were hers, not mine, ſent thither by her Majesty without my privity, and againſt my liking.

To this was replied; Firſt, that the forementioned Evidence fully demonſtrats Reply.that the Archbiſhop was both privy, conſenting, aſſiſting to the Spaniſh Match, Voyage, and to the very Instructions given to the Prince before he went into Spaine, how he ought to ſatisfie the Pope about King James his proving him to be the Antichriſt, in his publique writings; therefore the Popes Letter to the Prince and Biſhop of Conehen, to pervert the Prince in his Religion; with the Dukes and Lord Digbies attempts there, to ſeduce him to popery, and reconcile our Churches and Kingdomes to Rome by this meanes (contained in their mutuall Articles of Impeachment, the Copies of which Letters and Articles were found in his owne Study by Maſter Prynne) muſt needs concerne him, ſince he could not be ignorant, that the Pope and his Inſtruments would uſe their utmoſt diligence to ſeduce the Prince to their Religion, when they had him thus ſent, and betrayed into their power for that very purpoſe; and his Letter to Biſhop Hall, though written but of late, long after that intended Match, yet fully relates his privity to the moſt ſecret Inſtructions before it, to gratifie and pleaſe the very Pope himſelfe, and prevent his Objections againſt the Match, or King James. For the French Match, the Evidence proves he was both privy, conſenting and aſſiſting to it, even after he knew the danger of it in point of Religion, both to the King and Kingdome, by the proceedings and Articles in the Spaniſh Treaty, being both the very ſame in ſubſtance; whereas his intimacy, power with the King, Duke, and quality of his place as he was a Biſhop, yea Confeſſor to one or both of them, ſhould have engaged him (had he been a reall Proteſtant) to have uſed his utmoſt endeavours to diſſwade the King and Duke from both theſe Popiſh Matches, as moſt perilous, deſtructive to our Religion; the ſad effects whereof we now viſibly behold in our civill wars, and read In Characters written with our owne blood. For his intimacy with the Queen, it favours of farre more then civility or duty, and her extaordinary favours to him proceeded from no other cauſe, but his compliance with her Majeſty to introduce popery, and reduce us back to Rome, as appeares by his proceedings againſt Maſter Gellibrand in the High Commiſſion for his Almanack (wherin the popiſh Saints were expunged, and our Martyrs inſerted) at her Majeſties requeſt, by his prohibiting Miniſters to pray, and cenſuring them for praying for her converſion to our Religion, which we have punctually proved, and of Maſter Howe for praying to God to preſerve the young Prince from being brought up in Popery, of which there was great feare; a harmleſſe yea neceſſary prayer, both in reſpect of the Queen Mother, then too neer him, and the Queen, who by the Articles of the Match, was to have a great hand in his Education till he was fourteen yeers of age, as alſo in regard of the Popes Nuncioes, the ſeducing Jeſuits, Priests and Capucines about the Queen, Court, Him, and childrens naturall proueneſſe unto errour: Which prayers, admit they had been an overſight, yet proceeding from a godly Chriſtian Zeale, deſerved onelyonly a private admonition, not open proſecution, or High Commiſſion cenſure; but his making of them ſo publickly criminall, and cenſuring thoſe ſo ſeverely for them, of purpoſe to deterre all others from praying for the Queens converſion, or againſt the Princes perverſion, is an undeniable argument of his good affection to Popery, and attempts to reduce us thereunto: For his extolling Queen Maries, and depreſſing King Edwards, and Queen Elizabeths dayes, the words ſufficiently declare, it was as well in reference to the Religion then profeſſed, as to the Ʋniverſity Statutes, and the Preface it ſelfe is of his owne making as well as the Statutes, as we ſhall more fully manifeſt in due place by his own letters.

p. 550Secondly, to the particular inſtances, the Commons made this reply; Firſt, that their maine end in producing them was onelyonly to demonſtrate, that the Pope and his Instruments had a reall Plot and deſigne to introduce Popery, and reduce us back to Rome, and that the Archbiſhop could not but know and take ſpeciall notice thereof by all theſe particular Letters, Papers, Books, found in his owne Study, ſent, written to himſelfe, endorſed with his owne hand, or recorded in his Diary; which ſhould have engaged him with greater vigilancy, care, animoſity, to have oppoſed them and their deſignes: In which regard, the three firſt of them, with all the reſt moſt neerly concerned him, neither doth, nor can he plead ignorance of them: Secondly, that though all theſe particulars prove not, that he promoted, confederated with them in their deſignes, yet ſome of them directly prove it, as his countenancing of Sancta Clara his Books, his maintaining of Saint Giles (a moſt dangerous ſeducing Popiſh Prieſt) many yeers in the Univerſity of Oxford; his oppoſing, anſwering the Commons Remonstrance againſt the dangerous open encreaſe and practiſes of Papists in Ireland to ſet up Popery there, and branding it as a ſcandalous untruth: Thirdly, for Habernfields plot, we ſhall prove how it makes againſt him in due time; and for Sancta Clara his Book of Reconciliation, we have proved; Firſt, that he knew of it, and had both the Book and Author brought to him by his Favourite Doctor Linſey before it was printed; this we have under his owne hand, therefore it is monſtrous impudency in him to deny it: Secondly, that this Book when printed, was preſented to, reſerved by him in his ſtudy, and the Author with him there ſome three or four times afterwards: Thirdly, that it was printed and publickly ſold here in Londō without controll: Fourthly, that his creatures both abroad and at home much applauded it: Fiftly, that Saint Giles was the Author of it, a popiſh Prieſt whom himſelfe ſent to, and maintained in the Univerſity of Oxford, to pervert and ſeduce Schollers there; That he had the Kings Warrant for it, is no excuſe, and the Warrant being without date, written with his owne hand, and ſigned by the King to help at a dead liſt, ſavours of meer fraud, circumvention, and will amount to an aggravation, but no extenuation of his crime: Fourthly, the proffer of a Cardinalſhip twice unto him, even at Court, ſo ſoon as he was nominated Archbiſhop, proves the good opinion that the popiſh party had of his inclination to their party and Religion; his concealing the names of the parties that made him the offer (which he will not diſcloſe) and his not proſecuting and complaining againſt them to bring them to publique juſtice, prove that he deemed this proffer no injury nor diſparagement: if a poor Puritan did but write againſt Popery or Popiſh Innovations, he preſently proſecuted him in the High Commiſſion or Star-chamber, where he was ſure to be fined, impriſoned, pillored, ſtigmatized, ſcourged, baniſhed; but he that ſeriouſly tendred him a Cardinals Cap twice one after another, eſcaped ſcot-free, without ſo much as being once queſtioned for it: As for his informing the King thereof, it was not by way of complaint, but advice; and his anſwer to the King, if true, is no abſolute rejection of the Dignity, but rather an adjournment for the preſent, his ambitious itching deſire of being a Pope and Patriarch throughout his Majeſties Dominions, teſtified by Sir Henry, and Maſter Anthony Mildmay, with Maſter Challoner, making him refuſe the preſent offer, not any deteſtation of Popery, or reconciliation with Rome: To the ſixt was replied, that it appeared by the Biſhops Protestation in Ireland, that he knew of the great growth and power of Papiſts there even in the yeer 1626. two yeers before his Anſwer to the Commons Remonſtrance, which lyes on him ſubſtantially to prove, that it was made by the Kings command, as to this particular, not yet attempted by him, his owne bare endorſment being no proofe in his owne caſe: The Letters, Papers afterwards received by him from Ireland, moſt cleerly manifeſt his exact intelligence of popiſh Prieſts and Papiſts dangerous encreaſe and proceedings there, without the leaſt oppoſition from him, or complaint againſt them: The ſmalneſſe of their Monasteries, Nunneries there erected, is no extenuation of his guilt: Small evils not ſuppreſſed p. 551will prove grand univerſall miſchiefes in ſhort time, as thoſe their Monaſteries and Nunneries there have done: For the Lord Deputies Letters, it's true, he could not hinder the directing and ſending of them to him, but he might have hindered, prevented the execution of his deſperate popiſh project related in them, and have cruſhed it in the ſhell, which he never did. To the ſeventh was anſwered, that his extraordinary former power both with the King and Queen, might and ſhould have engaged him ſo farre, as to prevent thoſe Roman Nuncioes arrivall, here, and our Agents at Rome, whom he never ſo much as once oppoſed for ought appeares, but complied with, by his Agents, Biſhop Mountague and Secretary Windebank, as we have fully manifeſted, when as he ſhould rather have loſt his Archbiſhoprick, liberty, life, then have any way conſented to it in the leaſt degree, and openly reſiſted it to his utmoſt power.

The third Objection againſt me is, my compliance with the popiſh party, and Object. 3. Pag. 441, 442.endeavours to introduce Popery, advance the Papiſts Deſignes, and reduce us back to Rome by ſeven particulars formerly inſiſted on, and now onelyonly recapitulated with reference to the former proofs.

To moſt of all theſe I have given full anſwers before, and therefore ſhall be Anſwer.the briefer in giving further anſwers to them now. The firſt, ſecond, fourth, fifth, ſixth and ſeventh inſtances I deny, in the ſenſe they are preſſed, and have acquitted my ſelfe from them in the premiſes: To the third I ſhall give ſome further Anſwer.

Firſt, it is there objected, that I maintaintained the Church of Rome to be a true Church, and that ſhe erred not in Fundamentals, no not in the worſt times, bue onelyonly Circa Fundamentalia: And that I juſtified Chownaeus his Book, who maintained the ſame. I anſwer, that I did & doe maintain her to be a true Church Veritate entis, not Moris, though corrupt & erronious in ſome points, as a thief is a true man, though a thiefe: And in my Book againſt Fiſher, I charge her with ſome groſſe corruptions, errours, to the very endangering of ſalvation, and with ſuperstition too. Secondly, I am charged that I did maintaine at Doctor Bastwicks cenſure, that ſhe erred not in Fundamentalibus, but Circa Fundamentalia; this diſtinction I ſhall ſtill maintaine. There is a great difference between Fundamentalia and Superstructoria, and yet ſome circumſtantials may deſtroy the foundation: For example; Firſt, Quid What it is a man beleeves; if a man beleeves the Trinity without the Unity, or the Unity without the Trinity, this plucks up the Foundation: Secondly, Ʋbi, the circumſtance of place; for if any ſhould deny that Chriſt was borne, or took his fleſh in Judea, this grates upon the very foundation: Thirdly, Quibus Auxiliis, we beleeve, convert and doe works of piety; by nature or grace? If by the ſtrength of nature onelyonly, as the Pelagians held, this endangers the foundation: Fourthly, Quando, as to deny that Chriſt is not already come in the fleſh, this ſubverts the foundation, though but a circumſtance: And it is a rule in the Schools, Aliqua circumstantia dat ſpeciem morali actioni; and in this ſenſe the Church of Rome doth erre about fundamentals. Thirdly, it is alleaged, that I hold the Religion of the Church of England and Rome is both one; Conference with Fiſher, page 576. I anſwer, that it is one and the ſame Religion in the generall; to wit, the Christian Religion: But yet I there write; That we differ in the ſame Religion, though we ſet not up a different Religion; and the difference is in certaine groſſe corruptions, to the very endangering of ſalvation, which each ſide ſayes the other is guilty of. Fourthly, that I maintain, people may be ſaved in the Roman Church and Religion; I anſwer, that other learned Proteſtants are of the ſame opinion, not generally of all, but of thoſe among them who want meanes of better inſtruction; yet I hold it is very dangerous to continue in that Church and Religion, for any who have means to come out of them. Fiftly, that I hold the Pope is not the Antichriſt, and therefore I cauſed this Title given him to be expunged, & authorized, received, printed Books denying him to be Antichriſt, as Shelfords and others, contrary to our Homilies, Writers, and the Articles of Ireland: I anſwer, that no man can charge me, that I hold the Pope not to p. 552be Antichriſt: It is a great queſtion even among learned Proteſtants, whether he be ſo o… not. The Church of England hath not poſitively reſolved him to be ſo: The Homilies define him not to be Antichriſt: and the Articles of Ireland binde not us here. My expunging of this Title and others of that nature was upon other grounds. However, it is no ſuch undoubted Article of Faith, as Powell in his Booke De Antichristo, with others, make it. As for the objected Books, I neither Licenſed nor approved them, though I had them in my Study. Sixtly, it is objected, that I hold the Pope to be ſupreame head of the Church; Though Francis Sales, and others ſtile him ſo, they muſt anſwer for it, its nothing at all to me who hold it not. As for his titles given me by Croxton & the Univerſity of Oxford in their Letters, it was without my privity, I could not hinder it; and the ſame Titles have been uſually given to Biſhops in former ages, as appeares by the Epiſtles of Saint Cyprian, Auguſtine and others. Seventhly, for Pocklingtons and Biſhop Mountagues deriving my Succeſſion from Auguſtin, Gregory, and Saint Peters Chaire at Rome; it was without my privity: It is no more then Maſter Maſon hath proved long before my time; and the Papiſts would give you harty thanks, could you diſprove this lineall Succeſſion of our Biſhops.

To this was replyed in generall, that all the ſeven objected particulars prove a moſt apparant deſigne in him to introduce Popery, and reconcile us to Rome; Reply.and that all his Anſwers to them had been formerly diſproved as falſe and impertinent. In particular, That the Church of Rome was no true Church at all, but a falſe, Antichriſtian, as well as a corrupt Church. for Firſt, it hath no true Foundation, being not built upon the Apoſtles, Prophets, and Chriſt the corner-Stone. Secondly, no true Head, Ordinances, Sacraments, Worſhip, but a falſe adulterous head, the Pope; corrupt Ordinances, Sacraments, and a meere Idolatrous, ſuperſticious wil-worſhip. Thirdly, no true Miniſtry, nor government of Chriſts inſtitution. Fourthly, ſhe yeelds no true Subjection nor Obedience to Chriſt, his laws, word, ſpirit, but oppoſeth him and them in all. Fiftly, ſhe is over-ſpread with a Leproſie of damnable Errours in Doctrine, corruptions in Faith, Manners, Ordinances, Government. Sixtly, the definition of a true viſible Church in our Homilies and Writers agrees not to her. Seventhly, our Homilies, Writers define her to be a falſe Church, not a true, who are all muſtered up together by Maſter Burton in his Babell no Bethell, where ſhe is largely proved to be no true Church. For his diſtinction, that ſhe is a true Church Veritate Entis, though not Moris, as a Thiefe is a true man; it is a meere childiſh evaſion: For it is not the meere entity and being of a company of men, that makes up a Church, or true Church; for if ſo, the Turks, Pagans, or any aſſembly elſe ſhould be a true Church, as well as the Proteſtants; but a company of men rightly qualified, to wit; profeſſing the true Chriſtian Faith, among whom the Word of God is truly Preached, and the Sacraments duly administed. To ſet then the diſtinction and compariſon right. If one ſhould demand of the Archbiſhop, Whether a Theefe be a true man or no? as this phraſe true man, in our ordinary language ſignifies an honeſt juſt-dealing man, with reference to his qualities, morals, not his Entity or being as a meer man: himſelf grants that he is no true man, but a falſe one, in this ſenſe, in this very diſtinction; and to anſwer, that he is a true man in regard of his eſſence, therefore a true man in reſpect of his Morals, were a meer impertinency, & Nonſequitur. By the ſelfe-ſame reaſon, when we demand of him, Whether the Church of Rome be a true Church? and he anſwers She is ſo, Veritate entis, for ſhe conſiſts of a company of perſons, or reall men; not veritate moris, for that they are not ſo truly qualified in thoſe Morals, or rather ſupernaturall principles which makes them to be a true Church: Himſelfe muſt needs grant, that his diſtinction is fallacious, in applying this veritas entis to them as they are a Church, not men; or elſe yeeld that they are a falſe, but no true Church, becauſe his not veritate Moris, can be applyed to nothing elſe but to ſuch morall and divine qualifications, as ſhould make them a true Church; ſo as his owne diſtinction directly p. 553ſubverts this his falſe concluſion of her being a true Church; and his charging her with groſſe Corruptions, Errors, Superſtitions, to the endangering of ſalvation doth the like.

Secondly, it was retorted, that his diſtinction of her erring onelyonly circa fundamentalia, not in Fundamentalibus, was a falſhood: For firſt, her affirming the Church to be built upon Peter and the Pope, not Chriſt the chiefe corner-ſtone. Her denying the Scriptures to be Scriptures but as they are grounded on, confirmed and expounded by the Authority of the Church and Pope, Her making Apochryphall Scriptures Canonicall, and ſo adding to the Scriptures. Her giving the Pope power to null and diſpence with things againſt the Scriptures. Her reſolving the foundation of all our Faith into the Church; To beleeve as the Church beleeves, not into the Scriptures themſelves. Her deifying of the Virgin Mary, Saints, Images, in praying to and adoring them with divine worſhip. Her joyning of Saints Merits and Mediations with Chriſts, and making them joynt Saviours, Mediators & Advocates with him. Her turning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper into a Propitiatory Maſſing Sacrifice, of as great or greater Merit as Chriſts own Sacrifice on the croſſe; adoring the conſecrated Bread, as their Lord God and Chriſt himſelfe. Her taking away the Sacramentall Cup from the Laity, pointblanke againſt Chriſts owne Inſtitution. Her giving Chriſt an ubiquitary body on earth, inſtead of a glorified body in heaven; her tying people to pray to God in an unknown tongue, with her creating a new head of the Church in Chriſts ſtead, the Pope, who hath the Keyes of Heaven, Hell and Purgatory too; and can pardon ſins, releaſe Soules out of Hell and Purgatory at his pleaſure; with her aboliſhing the ſecond Commandement out of the Decalogue; What are they all but Fundamentall Errors, nullifying that Church which maintaines them, and not Errors onelyonly about the foundation?

For his foure inſtances, that circumſtances may undermine and deſtroy the Foundation: We anſwer, Firſt, that neither of all theſe inſtances concerne the Papiſts or Church of Rome, the ſubject in queſtion; therefore altogether impertinent. Secondly, they are not meer circumſtantials, but fundamentals; becauſe directly contrary to the expreſſe words of Scripture and Articles of our Faith, of which they are unſeparable parts; which if falſe in any part, may and will be falſe in the whole, and no ground of Faith at all. For the rule of the Schools we agree it, but how he applyes it to his diſtinction, or the Church of Rome, we cannot yet diſcerne.

Thirdly, it was replyed; That the Religion of the Church of Rome and England is not one and the ſame; For that which they repute the maine part of their Religion, is no Chriſtian Religion at all, nor part of the Chriſtian Religion, but meere Antichriſtian Errour, Superſtition, corruption, Idolatry. And in his Booke he doth no more charge her with ſome groſſe corruptions endangering Salvation, then ſhe chargeth us, as the peruſall of his words demonſtrates. Fourthly, his juſtifying ſalvation to be had in this falſe Antichriſtian Church and Religion, denying the foundation, is contrary to the opinion of all Otthodox Proteſtants, who make her damnable Errours the ground of their ſeparation from her. And though ſome affirme, that divers in the Church of Rome are ſaved; yet none are ſaved by being of that Church, or by that Faith and Doctrine which ſhe properly cals her Faith and Religion, wherein ſhe differs from us, but by their relying onelyonly on Chriſts merits, which ſhe diſclaimes.

Fiftly, his deleting all phraſes, clauſes calling or intimating the Pope to be the Antichriſt, is a cleer evidence, that he holds him not to be ſo: Elſe his ſinne, fault will prove the greater in purging out that as Heterodox and ſcandalous, which himſelfe beleeves to be a truth. For our Statutes, Homilies, Writers, they define the Pope either in direct termes, or equivalent expreſſions to be Antichriſt and our Church, yea State in them, at leaſtwiſe in our forecited Statutes, and the Subſidy, Act 3. Jac. penned by the Convocation. As for the Articles of Ireland, though p. 554they bind us not, yet being taken out of the Articles and Homilies of England, they ſufficiently declare the reſolution of our Church as well as theirs, that the Pope is Antichriſt; and Doctor Ʋſher Primate of Armagh, in a Letter of his to the Archbiſhop himſelfe, Jan. 4. 1635. (the very day of his birth) writes, That this conceit is ſo rife in the minds and mouths of the Papists now adayes, THAT WE ARE COMMING ON AND EVERY DAY DRAWING NIGHER UNTO THEM THEN OTHER; for the ſtopping of whoſe ſlanderous mouths, let this ſuffice, That whatſoever others imagine of the matter, I ſtand fully convinced in my conſcience, THAT THE POPE IS ANTICHRIST; and therefore if I ſhould be ſo mad as to worſhip the Beaſt, or receive the marke of his name, I muſt be foreign, and juſtly expect the revenge that is threatned againſt ſuch, Apoc. 14. 10, 11. Wherefore for this Arch-Prelat to queſtion it, to purge out all paſſages ſtiling him Antichriſt, after ſuch a Letter, to ſuffer ſuch Books to be printed, and retaine them in his Study, which deny him to be Antichriſt, without any cenſure of them or their Authors, is a grand offence, ſavourng of his good affection to the Pope.

Sixtly, though himſelf gives not this title of Supream head to the Pope in direct terms, yet he doth it in effect in his owne Book, and his Chaplaine licenſed it in Sales, for which himſelf muſt anſwer. As for the papall titles given him by Maſter Croxton & the whole Univerſity of Oxford, in ſeverall Letters, it was certainly with his approbation, elſe he would have reprehended them for it, which he never did: Theſe titles are ſuch as of later times have been appropriated only to the Pope, and were never given to any of his Predeceſſors in any Age, much leſſe to any Proteſtant Biſhop: And though one of them (as Sanctiſſime Pater) may perchance be found in Cyprians and Auguſtines genuine Epiſtles; yet Sanctitas in the abſtract, can hardly be ſhewed in any of their true Epiſtles, nor was ever appropriated to any for many hundred of Ages, but to the Pope: As for the other exorbitant and blaſphemous titles, no Father nor ancient Author was ever guilty of giving or affirming them.

Seventhly, for Pocklingtons and Mountagues deriving his pedegree and ſucceſſion from Rome, it is in ſuch phraſe and language, as was never uſed by Maſon, or any Obje. 4.elſe in former times, with a meere intention to reconconcile, reduce our Church and Prelats to Rome, from whence they derive their pedegree; the end of all theſe new poſitions and objected particulars againſt the Archbiſhop, the guilt whereof ſtill reſt upon him, notwithſtanding all his Evaſions to ſhake it off.

The fourth thing charged againſt me to make good this Branch, is my holding intelligence, correſpondence with the Popes Nuncioes, Agents, Prieſts, Jeſuits, by my Favourites and Inſtruments, as by Biſhop Mountague and Secretary Windebanke, advanced by my meanes; the later of them, as appeares by many produced Letters and Teſtimonies, holding intelligence with Cardinall Barbarino (who entertained his Sonnes at Rome) the Popes Nuncioes, and with divers dangerous Prieſts, Jeſuits, whom he protected, releaſed out of priſon, and impriſoned the Meſſengers who uſually apprehended them, till they gave bond, never to apprehend nor proſecute Prieſts any more.

To this I anſwer, Firſt, that there is no cleer proofe of Biſhop Mountagues advancement by me, or intelligence or compliance with the Popes Nuncio, Prieſts, Anſwer.or Jeſuits; but if there were, it is nothing to me, being without my privity, knowledge, or approbation: Secondly, for Secretary Windebanke, it is very true, I was the meanes of advancing him to the Secretaries place (being my ancient friend and acquaintance) but not with any intent to advance Popery, protect or releaſe Prieſts, Jeſuits, or hold any correſpondency with the Pope or his inſtruments; if he proved ſo ill an inſtrument after his advancement, it was beyond my expectation, himſelfe muſt anſwer, and hath been impeached for it, not I: For the Letters he received from the Popes Nuncio Panzani, the Queens Prieſts, or his Sonnes, with their going to, and entertainment at Rome, they concerne p. 555not me, who was not privy to them nor their entertainment: But it is objected, that we continued our friendſhip ſtill, notwithſtanding I knew his correſpondency with, releaſing and protecting Prieſts, Jeſuits, and joyned with him in ſome Warrants: I anſwer, that it is well knowne that he and I were at variance and diſtance of later times, he deſerting me in the buſineſſe of the late Lord Treaſurer Weston, and for my hand to one Warrant jointly with his and others for a Prieſts releaſe, it was but caſuall, we being then both together at the Counſell Table, where his Releaſe was condeſcended to, upon ſufficient baile and caution, at the Queens requeſt.

To this was replyed; Firſt, that Mountagues correſpondency with the Popes Reply.Nuncio, Prieſts, Jeſuits, his popiſh inclination and endeavours to reconcile and reduce us back to Rome, are abundantly proved in the premiſes, with his good affection to, and compliance with him in this deſigne, the end and cauſe of his advancing him to two ſeverall Biſhopricks, the laſt wherof was Norwich: In his account from whence to the Archbiſh. himſelf for the yeer 1638. (written with his owne hand, endorſed with the Archbiſhops, and found in his Study) there is this notable clauſe concerning King Henry the eighth, the firſt ſuppreſſor of the Popes power among us; The Biſhoprick of Norwich, ſince the totall deſolation and diſſolution of the former Biſhoprick by King Henry the eighth, WHO STOLE THE SHEEP, AND GAVE NOT SO MUCH AS THE TROTTERS FOR GODS SAKE, is a meane thing, (though worth above one thouſand pounds per annum) A moſt ingrate and ſcandalous expreſſion of an avaritious popiſh Prelat, unworthy of ſo fat a Biſhoprick, who inſtead of being Shepheard, became a Wolfe, devouring not onelyonly the Sheep, but Shepheards of his Dioceſſe, and vexing them more with his popiſh Viſitation, Articles, then ever KING HENRY the 8. did the Prelates by diminiſhing their over-large Poſſeſſions.

Secondly, for Secretary Windebank, it is undeniable; Firſt, that the Archbiſhop was the onelyonly meanes of his advancement to that place of truſt: Secondly, that he was his meer creature, inſtrument, boſome-friend, and privy to all his actions: Thirdly, this intimacy and friendſhip of theirs, continued till Windebanks flight hence in to France, upon the Parliaments impeachment againſt him for harbouring and releaſing Prieſts and Jeſuits, and that the tranſitory ſhort differerence between them about the Lord Treaſurer Weston, had no relation at all to any thing concerning Prieſts or Religion, wherein they both accorded: Fourthly, that the ſame Prieſts and Jeſuits, as Sir Toby Mattehw, Smith, Leander, Sancta Clara and Price, were intimate and familiar with them both: Fiftly, that they both concurred in checking, diſcouraging, impriſoning, Gray, Thatcher, Waddeſworth, and others for apprehending Prieſts, Jeſuits, and in calling Gray a Prieſt-catching knave; Sixtly, that they both joyned together in ſome Warrants for the releaſe of Prieſts; and his excuſe, that it was by caſualty when they were both at the Counſell Table, where others joyned with them, is no extenuation of his offence; where he being the over-potent member, ſhould have engaged all the reſt to oppoſe ſuch an illegall ſcandalous action, and not have drawne them on thereto, by ſetting his hand firſt to the Warrant: But it was to gratifie the Queen, and promote the Roman Catholick Cauſe, therefore to ſhew his forwardneſſe, his hand muſt be firſt to this Prieſts diſcharge, that ſo he might the more freely walk abroad to ſeduce his Majeſties Subjects: Seventhly, for Panzanies, Father Joſephs, Father Phillips, with his ſonnes and the Lord Scudamores Letters to Secretary Windebank, though they are nothing to the Archbiſhop in point of charge, ſimply conſidered (in which ſenſe we urge them not) yet they are infallible evidences of Secretary Windebanks correſpondency and intelligence with the Popes Nuncioes, Prieſts, Jeſuits, of Cardinall Barbarinoes, and others reſpects to him and his Sonnes, of his extraordinary protection of Prieſts, Jeſuits, and that he was their inſtrument, the onelyonly end for which we produced them; p. 556and being compared with his advancement of, and intimacy with Windebank, notwithſtanding the frequent complaints to himſelfe and the Counſell of his releaſing, protecting Prieſts, Jeſuits, and with that generall good opinion the Prieſts and Papiſts had generally at Rome, and in other forraigne parts of of the Archbiſhops owne reall endeavours to promote their Religion here, and reduce us back to Rome (teſtified by Sir Henry, and Maſter Anthony Mildmay, Maſter Challoner and others) it will amount to a full proof of a confederacy between them to effect this dangerous Romiſh Deſigne, notwithſtanding all his evaſions; to accompliſh which, this Secretary was as active an inſtrument for him in the State, as Mountague and other Prelats in the Church.

The fift thing objected to prove my reall intentions, endeavours to introduce popery, and reconcile us unto Rome, is my intimacy and correſpondency with Object. 5.divers dangerous Prieſts and Jeſuits, as Saint Giles, Sir Toby Matthew, Smith the Jeſuit, Leander, Price, the Biſhop of Calcedon Doctor Smith, and others; one of which [Saint Giles] I am charged to have maintained in the Univerſity of Oxford ſundry yeers, to corrupt and ſeduce Schollers there; my diſcouraging, threatning and abuſing Purſevants for their diligence in apprehending Prieſts and Jeſuits; my not committing Prieſts, or diſcharging them when brought unto me by them; my impriſoning Gray, and calling him Prieſt-catching knave; my connivance at the liberty that Prieſts and Jeſuits had in the New-priſon, Clink and elſwhere; my cauſing many popiſh Books to be reſtored to the owners when ſeized (contrary to the Statute) that ſo they might be diſperſed to ſeduce his Majeſties Subjects; ſome of which particulars are proved by papers under my owne hand, ſeized by Maſter Prynne, who ranſackt my Study and Chamber; others, by the teſtimonies of Waddeſworth, Newton, Deuxell, Mayo, Goldſmith, Cooke, Egerton, Elizabeth Gray and Thatcher: And out of my owne Book they alleage, I never perſwaded nor practiſed any perſecution againſt popiſh Prieſts or Jeſuits.

To this I anſwer in generall; Firſt, that if the deſigne charged againſt me, were onelyonly to reconcile the Church of England and Rome together in a juſt and Cſtriſtian way, ſo farre as it might ſtand with truth and piety, I hope no Chriſtian can blame, but rather commend me for ſuch an enterprize; Such a reconciliation between both Churches as this, I confeſſe I have long deſired, endeavoured, and publiſhed as much to the world in my Reply to Fiſher, p. 388. in theſe words; I have with a faithfull and ſingle heart, laboured the meeting, the bleſſed meeting of TRUTH AND PEACE in Christs Church, which God I hope will in due time effect: But other reconciliation then this to the prejudice of truth and piety, I never attempted, as my Epiſtle to that Book will manifeſt.

Secondly, for my pretended intimacy, correſpondency with Prieſts and Jeſuits, I dare confidently affirme, that never any man that ſate in my place ſince Anſw.the Reformation, had leſſe acquaintance, familiarity, correſpondence with Prieſts and Jeſuits then I; ſome of my late Predeceſſors, by name, Archbiſhop Bancroft and Abbot (never ſuſpected of any inclination to popery) have uſually held intelligence with, and received ſundry Letters from Prieſts, Jeſuits in forraigne parts yea entertained ſome of them at their Tables, and that no doubt for good purpoſes, and the advancement of the Proteſtant Religion: But I for my part never held correſpondency, nor received Letters from any of them; and I bleſſe God for it; for had I done it, I muſt have ſuffered very deeply; and my Chamber, Study, Cloſet, being ſo diligently ſearched, no doubt their Letters would have been ſeized, and given in evidence by Maſter Prynne, as well as others; but no ſuch Letters are or can be produced; and to my knowledge I never entertained knowingly any Prieſt or Jeſuit at my Table, nor gave them any countenance, though my Predeceſſors have uſually done it; to prove which, I deſire Maſter Dobſon may be examined: who being examined accordingly without Oath, affirmed; That he was an houſhold ſervant to Archbiſhop Bancroft, who received divers Letters of intelligence from Prieſts and Jeſuits in forraigne parts, and ſometimes admitted them p. 557to his Table; that he was after ſervant to Archbiſhop Abbot, who for a monethmonth or two, dieted one Julius Maria, and another popiſh Prieſt, as he taketh it, (the one a Spaniard, the other an Italian) at his Table, in hopes of their converſion, who faltered wish him in the end, and were thereupon diſcarded: That he was likewiſe a ſervant to this Archbiſhop, and never ſaw Sir Toby Matthewes, nor any other Prieſt or Jeſuit to his knowledge at his Table: Who being croſſe interrogated, Whether he knew Julius Maria and the other to be popiſh Prieſts? He anſwered, he did not certainly know them to be ſo, but they were ſo reputed, and profeſſed Papiſts: To which the Archbiſhop added, That King James had conference with, and extended favour to ſome Prieſts, making good uſe thereof, to ſet them at variance among themſelves, and induce them for to write one againſt another, as Watſon and Preston, who wrote divers Books in defence of the Oath of Alleagiance, and did good ſervice therein; whereupon my Predeceſſor Abbot granted Preston a kind of protection under his hand and Seale: And why I might not doe as much as my predeceſſors in countenancing Sancta Clara (were I guilty of it) without any Guilt of TREASON or juſt Offence, I yet know not any reaſon.

Thirdly, I utterly deny that I held any correſpondency with Sir Toby Matthew, Smith, Price, Leander, Sancta Clara or Saint Giles, neither is there any cleer proofe thereof: but admit I did, yet there's no proof at all that I knew them to be Seminary Prieſts; and if I knew them not to be Prieſts, no Law takes hold upon me, though I harboured them, which I never did.

Fourthly, the witneſſes produced to prove my intimacy with theſe Prieſts, are perſons of very meane condition, againſt whom there have been many great complaints made heretofore at the Counſell-Table, and againſt one or two of them of late, for diſhoneſt practiſes, in ſeizing other mens goods and moneys, under pretext of ſearching after Prieſts and Jeſuits, pretending the goods were theirs: which complaints were referred to ſome Juſtices of Peace to examine and how far their teſtimonies will ſway with your Lordſhips, I moſt humbly ſubmit to your grave judgements, they being formerly offended with me, for preſſing the examination of the many complaints againſt them in this kind.

Secondly, to the particular teſtimonies I anſwer; Firſt, that Saint Giles his reſiding and maintainance in Oxford, was by the Kings ſpeciall Warrant, which hath been produced, much againſt my will; and I never heard he exerciſed his popiſh Function, or ſeduced any there, but onelyonly ſtudied metaphyſicall learning, according to his engagement: Secondly, For Sir Toby Matthew, I did not know that he was either a Prieſt or Jeſuit, and utterly deny that he was ever with me in my Coach or Barge, or uſually repaired to me to Lambeth, though being an eminent Archbiſhops Son, I might in that regard have permitted him more free acceſſe unto me: And my Secretary, Maſter Dell, remembers not that ever he told Newton that Sir Toby Matthewes was with me in the Garden at Lambeth: Beſides, Newton, is but a ſingle witneſſe; and Maſter Dobſon atteſts, that he never ſaw Sir Toby Matthew with me at Lambeth. As for his releaſe when apprehended by the Lords Warrant, it was only by the Earle of Straflords order, not mine. For Smith the Jeſuit, there is no proofe that ever he was with me at Lambeth, but onelyonly that he was ſeen there talking familiarly with my Secretary, Maſter Dell, neere my Study doore, who denies and remembers not any ſuch thing: As for his words to Newton, that he had done his errand to me, they are but the reports of a Jeſuit to ſlander me, there being no proofe that ever he ſpake with me: For my correſpondence with the Biſhop of Calcedon, Doctor Smith, there is no proofe but conjecturall from my Diary: For Leander and Price their reſorting to me, it is but a report, without proofe at all: And for Sancta Clara, I never ſaw him above three or four times, according as I have truly related under my owne hand: Fourthly, Saint Giles and he were Aliens borne out of the Kings Dominions, p. 558and no naturall born Subjects; therefore admit I had harboured and maintained them, it is no fellony nor treaſon by our Lawes, and directly out of the Statute of 27. Elizabeth: Fiftly, Waddeſworths teſtimony, it is but a hearſay; for my ſending four pound to pay his Fees, I think it is true, and it was upon this occaſion; He pretended that he had been a Roman Catholick, but was now really converted to our Religion, and thereupon releaſed, but wanted money to pay his Fees; whereupon I ſent him four pound, thinking him to be a new convert to us, and it was upon his own ſending to, and acquainting me with his poverty and condition: Sixtly, for my releaſing and refuſing to meddle with Wilford the Prieſt, it neede no other anſwer then what the Witneſſe ſweares, that he had a protection and Letter of diſcharge from Secretary Windebanke, and this was the cauſe I refuſed to meddle with him: Seventhly, for Gray, he was committed by the Lords of the Counſell, not by me; he gave me very ill language, and uſed approbrious ſcandalous ſpeeches of me in my owne houſe, for which he was committed: As for my calling of him Prieſt-catching knave, it is proved but by one Witneſſe; and indeed there were many complaints againſt him for abuſing his authority in ſeizing and ſearching after Prieſts, to the prejudice of thoſe who were not ſuch: whereupon I commanded the reſt of the Meſſengers belonging to the High Commiſſion not to keep him company, to avoid the like abuſes and complaints: Eightly, for Egertons teſtimony, it is but a report from Motterſheads mouth, a ſingle Witneſſe, formerly cenſured in the High Commiſſion for his abuſes in importing prohibited Books, and therefore his teſtimony is to be ſuſpected; Maſter Jones is not produced to make good his teſtimony, but his papers onelyonly, which are no evidence: Ninthly, for the liberty and freedome of Prieſts in their priſons, it was unkowne to me, and their Keepers fault, not mine, who would have reſtrained them: Finally, Mayo witneſſeth thus much for me, that I gave him command to watch the Embaſſadours and Popes Nuncioes houſes, to ſee who reſorted thither to Maſſe; which he did, giving me an account thereof; and Thatcher confeſſeth, that I gave him a Warrant to apprehend Prieſts and Jeſuits; though I denied it to another, whom I thought not fit to truſt in ſuch an imployment; a cleer evidence I was no friend unto, and held no correſpondency with them. Whereas it is objected, that I confeſſe I never perſwaded nor practized any perſecution againſt popiſh Priests and Jeſuits, though I perſwaded and practized it too againſt Puritans, and thoſe who oppoſed popery: I anſwer, that I hope it is no offence not to be a perſecutor, or not to give ill language to Jeſuits; and for my perſecuting of orthodox Miniſters and Puritans, I never perſecuted any, though I proſecuted ſome for their ſchiſme and miſdemeanours: Wherefore this heavy charge which hath made ſo great a noyſe in your Lordſhips and the peoples eares, is I hope quite wiped off, and fallen to the ground.

To this was replyed in generall; Firſt, that the Deſigne charged upon him is, not his reconciling of ROME to us, but of the Church of ENGLAND Reply.to the errours and corruptions of the Church of ROME; and how active he was, how farre he proceeded to accompliſh this, and how neer he had brought it to perfection, both in point of Doctrine, Ceremonies, practiſe, the premiſed evidences have abundantly manifeſted, notwithſtanding all flouriſhes to the contrary in his Book againſt Fiſher, publiſhed not out of any zeale againſt popery, but meerly in policy upon other mens ſolicitations, to ſtop the peoples clamours againſt his popiſh practiſes and proceedings, as himſelfe relates in his Epiſtle thereunto: And his ſetting up ALTARS, CRUCIFIXES, IMAGES, TAPERS, introducing bowing to ALTARS, COPES, Conſecration of Flagons, Churches, Chappels, purging out all paſſages againſt popiſh Doctrines, Popes, Jeſuits, popiſh Prieſts, &c. his permitting all kind of ARMINIAN ERROURS and Popiſh Tenents, to be Preached in our Pulpits, and publiſhed in Print p. 559with his Chaplaines ſpeciall approbations prefixed to them; together with his countenancing; advancing the Authors, fomenters, and perſecuting the oppugners of them, ſpeak farre cleerer, louder againſt him, then all his empty writings and teſtimonies of himſelfe can poſſibly plead for his juſtification, being ſo palpably contradicted by the whole ſtreame of his actions.

Secondly, that his intimacy, correſpondency with popiſh Prieſts and Jeſuits is ſufficiently proved by our former evidence: Sir Toby Matthew, the moſt active pernicious Jeſuited Prieſt in the Kingdome, we have proved to be riding with him ſometimes in his Barge, ſometimes in his Coach, ſometimes in private earneſt diſcourſe with him in his Garden, and frequently with him at his Table; what greater familiarity or intimacy could there be between them then this? That he knew him to be a Prieſt and Jeſuit, is cleere by Habernfields plot, found in his Study, informing him to be ſo; and by the Popes Bull to him, common in many Courtiers hands: For Sancta Clara, his favourite Doctor Lindſey brought him to his Study, with his Book to reconcile us to Rome, to peruſe it of purpoſe before it went to the Preſſe; after which he came thrice to him, writ a Book in defence of Epiſcopacy by divine Right, with an intention to gratifie him, and tendred it to him for his licenſe, as himſelfe confeſſeth under his aaSee here p. 427.own hand in a written paper, where he extenuates this fact all he could; and is this no intimacy nor correſpondency? For St Giles, his own bbSee here p: 428.hand-writing, teſtifies that he knew him to be a Prieſt, yet notwithſtanding he permitted him to reſide ſundry yeers in the Univerſity of Oxford, where himſelfe was Chancellour, to have the uſe of the Library there; yea he provided him a large maintainance, & conſtantly paid it to him there, during his reſidence, he repairing oft times to him to receive it; and is all this no intimacy, no correſpondency? For Leander, he denies not but that he was with him once or twice, and if common reports both among popiſh Prieſts, Papiſts or Proteſtants may be credited, he was once his Chamber-fellow in Oxford, and moſt intimate, powerfull with him here, being purpoſely ſent hither by meanes of his intereſt in him, to compleat our reconciliation and reduction to Rome. For Smith, a moſt dangerous Jeſuit, we have proved his being at Lambeth neere his Study, his familiarity with Maſter Dell his Secretary, who uſed him with great reſpect; his intimacy with Secretary Windebanke, the Arch-biſhops greateſt confederate; his ſending of meſſages to the Archbiſhop by Sir Toby Matthew, to remember the buſineſſe he told his Grace of when he was laſt with him; and his frequent threatning of Maſter Newton the Meſſenger when he met him in the open ſtreets, that he would complaine of him, or doe his errand to the Archbiſhop, and that he had done it; And are theſe no badges of his intimacy? For his acquaintance and correſpondence with the Biſhop of Calcedon, Doctor Smith, it is apparent by his owne Diary, and Windebanks Letter to his Son, himſelfe not daring to deny, that Doctor Smith mentioned in his Diary, is any other then Calcedon: For Price the Provinall of the Benedictines, we have proved that he hath been ſeen at Lambeth talking familiarly with Maſter Dell, and waiting neer the Archbiſhops Study doore to ſpeak with him in private; that he and Leander have been oft times met, going, as themſelves affirmed, to Lambeth to ſpeak with the Archbiſhop, who cannot deny but they were with him; and by whoſe means we know not, this Price procured the Searchers place at Dover for the uſe of the Benedictines, and put two profeſſed Papiſts into it, for the freer paſſage of Prieſts and Jeſuits into the Kingdome, and more ſecure conveying intelligence to and from Rome: Now lay all this together, and we dare confidently averre, that all his predeceſſors ſince the Reformation put together, had not halfe that intimacy, correſpondency with Prieſts and Jeſuits as he; and if the truth were knowne, the party or parties who two ſeverall times ſeriouſly tendred him a Cardinals Cap, avowing ability to performe it, was either the Popes owne Nuncio, or ſome Prieſts, Jeſuits or popiſh Agents, who had inſtructions p. 560from the Pope himſelfe to make this offer to him; which none durſt nor could without hazard of their lives, have tendred ſo much as once, much leſſe twice to any of his proteſtant predeceſſors: That he received no Letters from Prieſts and Jeſuits, is a thing not credible; the double proffer of a Cardinalſhip to him from Rome, is a ſtronger evidence that he received Letters likewiſe from thence, then his owne bare word, he received none: It is true, we met with no ſuch Letters in his Study or Cloſet, but the reaſon was, himſelfe before his commitment and afterward, when he went to Lambeth to fetch papers thence (his Cloſet and Study being not ſealed up till ſome moneths after his commitment) had time and wiſdome enough to convey all ſuch Letters out of the way, or burne them, leaſt they ſhould riſe up in judgement to condemne him, though he removed not others thence, wherein he conceived leaſt danger, the better to colour his removall and burning of the moſt dangerous.

For Maſter Dobſons Teſtimony, he is but testis domesticus, his owne meniall ſervant, a meer ſingle Witneſſe, and unſworn too, therfore not ſo much to be valued; but take it as it is, it proves little for him: He ſaith, that Archbiſhop Bancroft received Letters of intelligence from forraigne Prieſts and Jeſuits, but he knowes neither their perſons nor names, much leſſe that they were either prieſts or Jeſuits and that any ſuch reſorted to his Table, he cannot certainly affirme it: for he cannot nominate any one prieſt in particular, and conceives onelyonly they were prieſts but knowes it not but by conceit, without other evidence: For Julius Maria and the other forraigner, who dieted for a time at Archbiſhop Abbots Table, he confeſſeth he did not know them to be prieſts, but ſtrangers they were, and papiſts, who made ſome ſhewes and promiſes to that Archbiſhop of turning Proteſtants, the onelyonly ground why he thus entertained them, to further and perfect their converſion; but as ſoon as they faltred with him, they were preſently diſcarded: But what is this to this Archbiſhops caſe, who kept correſpondency with theſe Prieſts and Jeſuits, of purpoſe to pervert and reduce us back to Rome, not to convert them unto us; certainly neither of theſe two (though Bancroft was none of the greateſt enemies to Rome) ever entertained a Jeſuit, or moſt pernicious known ſeducers into their Coaches, Barges, Cloſets, Gardens, as he did Sir Toby Matthew and Sancta Clara; never maintained any Prieſts in the Univerſity to ſeduce young Schollers, and inſtruct the Doctors there, as he did Saint Giles, who profeſſed, that the ccSee p. 428.Archb. was very cordiall for their Romiſh Religion; never checked, impriſoned purſivants for being too active in apprehēding Prieſts, nor reviled them by the name of Priest-catching kndves, as he hath done; their caſes and his therefore are very different: For Maſter Dobſons not ſeeing Sir Toby Matthew at Lambeth; Ergo, he was never there with the Archbiſhop; it is a meer Nonſequitur; Maſter Dobſon is ancient, perchance his eyes were ſo dimme he could not diſcerne him, or he was out of the way when Sir Toby was there; but divers others ſweare they ſaw him there; Maſter Dell informed Maſter Newton, that his Lord was buſie with Sir Toby Matthew in the Garden: yea therefore the Archbiſhop dares not produce him to teſtifie his knowledge, leaſt he ſhould confeſſe the truth.

For King James his encouraging Watſon and Preston to write againſt the Jeſuits and other of their Orders, no doubt it was a lawfull policy, and if this Archbiſhop made uſe of theſe Prieſts, Jeſuits for the like good ends, we ſhould have commended, not accuſed him for it; but he makes uſe of them the quite contrary way, to poyſon, corrupt our Univerſities, to ſophiſticate our Articles of Religion, to put ſuch a Roman gloſſe upon them, as might make them ſeem to be Roman Catholiques and to reconcile us ſpeedily to Rome, not Rome to us, as Sancta Clara his Book (written in England, and ddSee p. 427.ſhewed to his Grace by the Author himſelfe, accompanied with his great favourite Biſhop Linſey before its publication, as himſelfe acknowledgeth under his owne hand-writing) manifeſts paſt all contradiction; therefore the caſe of Preston (to whom he himſelfe hath given p. 561a protection under his hand and Seale as well as Abbot) is altogether impertinent.

Thirdly, for his correſpondency with Sir Toby Matthew, Sancta Clara, Saint Giles, Leander, Smith and Price, we have ſo fully proved it, that impudency it ſelfe would bluſh to deny it: OurWitneſſes have ſworne all of them to be popiſh Prieſts, himſelfe under his hand confeſſeth Saint Giles to be ſuch a Prieſt, and that he was charged not to exerciſe his eeSee p. 428Prieſtly Function during his reſidence in Oxford; it is ſtrange audacity therefore in him to deny, that he knew any of them to be Prieſts, when he infallibly confeſſeth he knew him, and no doubt knew all the reſt to be ſo too, eſpecially Sancta Clara, who ſtiles himſelfe ſo in his Book, yea Father Price and Leander too, were moſt notoriouſly knowne to all to be ſuch, and to exerciſe their Prieſtly Function in London, if not in the Court it ſelfe ſometimes, therefore knowne no doubt to be prieſts to him.

Fourthly, for the Witneſſes produced, we very much wonder at his exceptions againſt them, moſt of them, as Maſter Waddeſworth, Newton, Mayo, Thatcher, Goldſmith and Cooke, being perſons imployed by the Lords of the Counſell, himſelf and the high Commiſſioners to apprehend Prieſts and other Delinquents, who cōtinued in that imployment after the pretended complaints againſt them: If they were men ſo diſhoneſt, ſo uncredible as he pretends, why thē did himſelf, the Lords and high Commiſſioners make choice or imploy ſuch for their Meſſengers, & commit ſo great a truſt unto them? If they be perſons worthy to be truſted with ſuch an employment by perſons of honour, quality and himſelfe too, then certainly moſt competent Witneſſes, atteſting onelyonly that they know, with reference to the Arch-biſhop, in the very execution of their Office, about the apprehending of Prieſts and Jeſuits, wherein none can give ſo full or punctuall teſtimony as themſelves, who are moſt privy to their own Actions. For the pretended abuſes committed, they concerne onelyonly two or three of them, not all; that they are guilty of ought complained againſt them, there is not the leaſt ſhadow of proofe offered by the Archbi. and admit there were, yet it would no wayes invalid their teſtimony, being not in the things for which they were accuſed, and fortified with other concurrent teſtimonies, as Maſter Thatchers, Maſter Deuxels and Elizabeth Grayes, againſt which there is no juſt exception; for M^r Egertons cenſure in the High Commiſſion, it was moſt unjuſt and illegall; he was ſentented there to be deprived of his Searchers place, and fined forty pounds, onelyonly for giving way, and conniving at the importation of ſome ENGLISH BIBLES with GENEVA NOTES, and ſelling ſome of them to others: A dangerous crime, which will rather improve then impeach his teſtimony in all honeſtmens opinions.

Secondly, for his particular anſwers, we ſhall returne this replication; Firſt, that the Warrant under the Kings hand for Saint Giles his reſidence and maintainance in Oxford, is without date, written with the Archbiſhops owne hand, and a meer circumvention; yea, it ſeems a very ſtrong argument of his guilt; for if himſelfe did not place and provide for him in Oxford, what need he procure ſuch a Warrant from the King to doe it? and if he had been cordiall to our Religion, he would never have accepted ſuch a Warrant, nor intermedled with ſuch a dangerous ſcandalous Deſigne as this, to poyſon and ſeduce the whole Univerſity (who took publick notice of it) in ſuch a time of generall defection and backſliding unto popery.

Secondly, for his intimacy with Sir Toby Matthew, and knowing him to be a Prieſt, our Witneſſes evidences are ſo cleere, we ſhall rather pitty his impudency in denying it, then trouble your Lordſhips in repeating them; Maſter Dobſons not ſeeing him at Lambeth, is no proofe he was not there, and the Earle of Straffords releaſing him, was ſeconded with his owne approbation who ſaid it is well.

Thirdly, for Smiths, Leanders and Price their reſorts unto him, we have formerly p. 562cleered it, and ſhall not repeat; Sancta Clara his addreſſes to him, with his Books to reconcile us, is confeſſed under his owne hand, we need no other teſtimony.

Fourthly, that Sancta Clara and Saint Giles were Aliens, is no extenuation of his guilt, but aggravation; for they were therefore the fitter, the likelier to be imployed hither by papall authority, to reduce us back to Rome; But admit them Aliens, which he hath hath not as yet proved, yet Sir Toby Matthew, Leander and Price were native Engliſhmen, and ſo within the Statutes of 23 Eliz. c. 1. & 27 Eliz. c. 2. which he would evade.

Fiftly, for Maſter Waddeſworths teſtimony, it is very full, the Deſigne was to ſend him over-ſea, or to impriſon him, till he ſhould enter into bond never to proſecute or apprehend Prieſts more, to which plot the Archbiſhop was privy, whoſe name was uſed to him, himſelf confeſſing he ſent him four peeces to be rid of him; He pretends it was becauſe he pretended himſelfe a convert: Certainly this is but a pretext, he being a convert many yeers before, and one imployed to apprehend Prieſts long before his impriſonment, his diligence herein being the cauſe of his troubles.

Sixtly, his refuſall to commit Wilford, a moſt dangerous ſeducing Prieſt, before he knew he had any protection, and diſcharging him afterwards, onelyonly becauſe he had a protection from Secretary Windebanke, with Maſter Dels anſwer, that his Lord would not meddle with ſuch trifles; ſhewes the coldneſſe of his zeale to our Religion, and his good affection to popery: If a godly Proteſtant Miniſter had but ſcrupled at the reading of the Book for Sabbathday-ſport, or omitted the leſt Ceremony, or preached but a Sermon on a Lords-day after-noon, theſe were ſuch hainous crimes, and matters of ſo grand importance, that they muſt be forthwith ſuſpended, committed, deprived, and all buſineſſes ſet aſide to proſecute them, notwithſtanding any protection of Law or Goſpell; but if a dangerous Prieſt, who had perverted above two hundred ſoules, be brought before his Grace, alas his zeale is ſo frozen, he will not meddle with the buſineſſe, and his friend Secretary Windebanks Warrant muſt ſet him free, and ſecure him againſt all lawes and proſecutions: A plaine proofe of a confederacy between them to protect theſe Traytors, and reduce us back to popery, by granting liberty to ſuch pernicious ſeducers.

Seventhly, for Gray, his onelyonly fault as our Witneſſes depoſe, was, that he complained againſt, his expertneſſe and diligence in diſcovering prieſts, and aſſiſting other Meſſengers to apprehend them; for this hainous crime alone, Windebanke complained of him to the Queen; and for this very cauſe Thatcher is ſpecially charged by the Arciſhop himſelfe, not to keep company with him, under paine of being turned out of his place; and Goldſmith depoſeth, that the Archbiſhop himſelfe gave a publick charge to all the Meſſengers of the High Commiſſion not to keep company with Gray any more, for if they did he would lay them by the heels, pull their Coats off their backs, and turne them out of their places; Committed he was to the Fleet upon the Archbiſhops complaint, only for uſing words implying his coldneſſe in proſecuting prieſts, & hoping to ſee better times; a very poor cauſe to impriſon him ſo long: His own hand (as we proved) is to the Warrant for his commitment: He oft times petitioned for his enlargement by his wife, but his petitions were ſtill rejected with ſcorn; He anſwers, He will have nothing to doe with that Prieſt-catching knave, proved by two Witieſſes, Elizabeth Gray and Goldſmith. Ʋbi dolor ibi digitus; here was the cauſe of all the malice againſt Gray, this was his grand crime, he was a prieſt-catcher, and a knave for catching them; ſtrange language from an Archbiſhop: But what followes? his favourite Windebank muſt come in to act the ſecond part and cloſe up the Tragedy; Gray muſt not be enlarged after many moneths impriſonment, till he put in baile never to diſcover or proſecute Priests more, and then they ſhould all be quiet in ſhort time p. 563with our prelats and popiſh Clergies concurrence, quickly reduce us all to Rome: This is the upſhot of the Deſigne, which this evidence concerning Gray moſt cleerly diſcovers and proves too.

Eightly, for Egertons teſtimony, concerning his reſtoring of popiſh Books, it is more then a report, it was from the mouth of Motterſhead a ſworne Officer to the Archbiſhop, now dead, who durſt not report an untruth of this nature, and the Archbiſhop himſelfe confeſſeth, the many Books forementioned, were reſtored by order of the High Commiſſion Court, whereof himſelfe was a chiefe member, therefore by him; a cleer confirmation of Motterſheau's words, Egerton's teſtimony, and Maſter Jones his papers.

Ninthly, for the liberty of Prieſts, Jeſuits, and their ſaying Maſſe in priſons, it was his owne negligence and connivance, the Keepers being under his command, & the High Commiſſioners, who could look narrowly enough to Puritans and godly Miniſters: and indeed their commitment thither to ſecure them from our common Goales and all legall proſecutions, was but a meer fallacy to delude the people, and advance the Catholick cauſe with greater facility and leſſe ſuſpition.

Tenthly, Mayoes teſtimony and Thatchers, are ſo farre from extenuating, that they aggravate his offence; their Warrants and imployments being meer diſſimulations and ſhadowes to gull the people; for naught was done upon the intelligence of the one, to whom he refuſed to grant a Warrant, becauſe he was too hot againſt Prieſts; and no Prieſts apprehended by the other, who had his Warrant upon this condition, Not to imploy or keep company with Gray, the onelyonly man that could diſcover Prieſts and Jeſuits to him, and help him in their apprehending.

Finally, his owne objected confeſſion in his Epiſtle to the King, God forbid I ſhould ever offer to perſwide a perſecution in any kind, or practice it in the leaſt, &c. againſt Prieſts and Jeſuits, coupled with the premiſes, when as he was ſo terrible, ſo bloody a perſecutor of Orthodox godly Miniſters, and zealous Proteſtants, unanſwerably proues his connivance at, his protection of, and confederacy with them, to re-enthrall us in their Romiſh bondage: So that this whole charge, however he conceives he hath ſhaken it quite off and laid it in the duſt, recoiles upon him with greater vigor, and reſts heavier on his back then ever.

The laſt charge of this nature againſt me is, aaPage 459, 460.that I complyed with Papiſts, Prieſts and Jeſuits, in concealing their very Treaſonable plots and conſpiracies Obje. 6.both againſt our State, Church and Religion, to reduce us unto Rome, for which they produce two inſtances; my threatning and committing Miſtris Huſſey, for diſcovering a dangerous plot of the Queen. Mother and others to cut the Proteſtants throats; and my concealing of Habernfields plot diſcoverd to me, not proſecuting or revealing it to the Parliament or Lords, to fift it to the bottome.

To this I anſwer that I did not conceale nor diſcourage the diſcoverers of either of theſe two plots: For the firſt of them, I conceived it very improbable, Anſwer.and I thought Anne Huſſey to be crazy when ſhe revealed it, and ſo much I told her; For her commitment to the Sheriffes, it was at her owne deſire, for her greater ſafety; and there was as ſtrict an examination as poſſible of this conſpiracy, but no cleer evidence: For the latter plot, as ſoon as I received intelligence of it, I preſently revealed it to the King, as appeares by my Letter, and the Kings Anſwer to it in the margin, under his owne hand, which Maſter Prynne hath printed; and the ſubſequent Letters prove, that I did all I could therein, but could make nothing of it; This I beleeve a noble Lord here preſent well remembers, to whom I diſcloſed it, to wit, the Earle of Northumberland (who preſently replyed, he did remember no ſuch thing:) However, it is one of the greateſt evidences that can be of my ſteadfaſtneſſe in the proteſtant Religion, and oppoſition againſt popery, if the plot were reall, and if but counterfeit, then no crime to conceale it.

p. 564To which was replyed; Firſt, that all the premiſes abundantly prove, that he Reply.was privy and aſſiſtant to many Jeſuiticall plots and devices to uſher in popery, and reduce us to Rome, therefore it is no wonder that he oppoſed not, nor proſecuted, but ſmothered them all he could: Secondly, that the firſt of the plots which he then conceived improbable, hath ſince experimentally proved reall both in England and Ireland, yea his ^b Owne with Straffords dangerous advice to the King, To ſee A neceſ…ary Introdution to his Tryall, p. 170 71.bring in an Army of Iriſh Papists at that time, to ſubdue the Scots, becauſe they durſt not truſt the Engliſh; was cozen Germane to this plot, which ſhe diſcovered, and probably a branch thereof; For his deeming and calling her Mad-woman, when ſhe ſpake both punctually and rationally, with his reviling terrifying words to her, his laying an imputation on the whole City of London, that ſhe was hired by them to make this diſcovery, with his menaces to have her puniſhed, &c. were unſufferable abuſes in ſuch a caſe as this, to ſmother a moſt execrable Treaſon, and ſuch a terrifying of a Witneſſe, as we ſhall not read the like, eſpecially when all the other Lords encouraged and gave her good words: As for the further examination of the buſineſſe afterwards and commitment of the Prieſt, it proceeded only from the other Lords, not him, who did all he could to dant the Witneſſes, and conceal the Conſpiracy; which if fully proſecuted at that time, might have prevented the bloody Maſſacres which have ſince been made in Ireland and England, in proſecution of the ſame Deſigne, to advance the Catholick Cauſe, and reduce us back to our preſtine Romiſh thraldome and ſuperſtitions: Thirdly, for Habernfields plot, it is true, upon the firſt diſcovery of it to him in the generall onelyonly, when he deemed it to be a conſpiracy plotted & proſecuted onelyonly by Puritans, he acquainted the King therewith, which we confeſſe in our Evidence; but as ſoon as he received the full diſcovery of it, & found the parties engaged in it to be Papiſts, Prieſts, Jeſuits, and ſome of his owne creatures, confederates therein particularized, (as Secretary Windebanke, Sir Toby Matthew, and others about the Court,) he preſently ſets downe, proceeds no farther in it, conceales his papers to himſelfe, not diſcovering them to King, Counſell, Parliament, nor endeavouring to apprehend, examine the parties named in it, when preſent, and ſome of them queſtioned, yea impeached in Parliament for ſome particulars relating to it: Which concealment of his, of a moſt deſperate Treaſon and Conſpiracy, thus circumſtantiated in a caſe of ſuch grand concernment to the ſafety of the King, Kingdome, Church and Proteſtant Religion, we conceive to be a high and treaſonable offence, tending onelyonly to advance thoſe popiſh Deſignes to ſubvert our Religion, and ſubject us unto Rome, which have ever ſince been proſecuted by the ſelfe-ſame parties, faction, with an higher hand and more open face of late, then ever heretofore: That this plot was not a fiction, (unleſſe onelyonly in that which concernes himſelfe, wherein he knew there were ſome miſtakes, he being not ſo odious at Rome as it ſeemes to make him,) but a reall truth in all or moſt particulars which concern our Religion; his owne Diary, his endorſments on it together with our dear-bought experience, & late Diſcoveries concurring with it, fully evidence. His own cōviction therfore of its reality ſhould have enduced him, if not to proſecute, yet at leaſtwiſe to have revealed itto the Parliament, that they might have fifted it to the Bran, which he never did; Maſter Prynnes ſeizing it in his Chamber, to his great griefe, being the onelyonly meanes to bring it unto light: His argument, that it makes moſt of any thing for the juſtification of his ſincerity to our Religion, and oppoſition to Popery, aggravates, not extenuates his offence in concealing it, becauſe then he had more reaſon to diſcloſe it, as well for his owne vindication from ſcandal, as the publike ſafety of our King, Church, Religion; but his engagements to this confederated Popiſh party, and the Advancment of their cauſe were ſuch, that he preferred them before his owne private pretended juſtification, or the ſafety of all theſe coupled together: Wherefore he ſtill remaines under the guilt, weight of this and all other p. 565the Commons forementioned particular charges, notwitſtanding all his Anſwers, Defences to enervate or elude them: And therefore upon this firſt generall Branch of his Charge, the Commons prayed Judgement againſt him from the Houſe of Peers, as the Archeſt Traytor, the cunningeſt Ʋnderminer Subverter of of our eſtabliſhed Religion, the greateſt Advancer of Popery, and moſt ſedulous Agent to reduce us back to Rome, of any Archbiſhop or pretender to the Protestant Religion, that our Engliſh Soile or the Christian world have ever bred; concluding in the Poets words, Dij talem terris avertite Pestem.

The remaining Branches of whoſe Charge and Tryall, we ſhall (God willing) contract into a leſſer Volume, and publiſh with convenient ſpeed; in each Branch whereof, he will appeare as Criminall, as Treaſonable, as Arch a Malefactor as in this, wherein he moſt proteſted, moſt laboured to aſſert his Innocency againſt ſo many pregnant Evidences and cleer Demonstrations of his guiltineſſe, as will render him moſt execrable to all true Protestants for eternity, however ſome have already enrolled him in their lying Legends, for a moſt glorious Martyr, and more meritorious Saint, then ever his traiterous Predeceſſor Becket was; whoſe Treaſons and other grand Miſdemeanours, were farre inferiour both in quantity, quality, and a trocity unto his.

FINIS.